Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 38 of 38
  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by R View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    So when all Europeans united in a new found "European nationalism", would you think the EU Army would be good or bad?
    Anything founded on nationalism is inherently bad.


    No.​

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Pimp of Pimps View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Anything founded on nationalism is inherently bad.


    Its not about the nationalism. Its about the Army. You said it will not happen due to Nationalistic behavour of the member states, which has a tradition in the EU, so my suggestion is imagine the EU member states to act as a single nationalistic bloc - under this circumstance: how do you view a united EU army?

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by R View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The way you made it sound was that there is an imminent conflict between Europe and Russia, which causes Russia to shut down all oil delivery (never happened before by the way, not cold war, not ukraine crisis etc. EU-Russia gas transfers have been reliable ever since). In this case the European reserves are more than enough to supply the entirety of EU for months. Enough time to sign increasing deals with other providers (The US in particular is keen on delivering to europe, its even word-by-word part of their sanction billl against russia).

    No one denied the fact that oil and gas are important. What I deny, and rightfully so, is that russian gas in case of an actual threat and economical or military conflict can not be replaced.
    1) You literally just said we can export heavily from continents outside of Europe when the fact is we cant. We literally receive none of our Oil from America, so how do you imagine within the space of a few months we can suddenly have America making up Russias entire share of our oil? You realise Russia is responsible for about 40% of the oil member Eu nations get right? How do you ration those oil reserves that are supposedly 'going to last a few months' in the first place anyway. How would you stop the in fighting and decide who gets what?

    2)Because we've never fully been at war with Russia. There is a reason why the EU did nothing when Russia decided to invade the Ukraine even though Russia violated EU law and its plain and simple because the EU cant do anything against Russia.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by White View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    1) You literally just said we can export heavily from continents outside of Europe when the fact is we cant. We literally receive none of our Oil from America, so how do you imagine within the space of a few months we can suddenly have America making up Russias entire share of our oil? You realise Russia is responsible for about 40% of the oil member Eu nations get right? How do you ration those oil reserves that are supposedly 'going to last a few months'.

    2)Because we've never fully been at war with Russia. There is a reason why the EU did nothing when Russia decided to invade the Ukraine even though Russia violated EU law and its plain and simple because the EU cant do anything against Russia.
    Can you elaborate how you think we can not import from continents outside of europe? When Russia decides to no longer receive an important part of their GDP due to the gas transfers with the EU, what is stopping us, the EU, to receive them from the asian continent (Iran, SA) or the North American continent (USA)? Can you elaborate on that?

    Your argument appears to me as if European and Russian Gas is a "just-in-time" delivery, where the EU happens to just spend as much as it receives. This is not the case. As I stated before, the European Union has gas reserves to keep the machine going for months. It allows for wiggle room when the diplomatic situation tightens.

    While Russia loses income directly and immediately, the EU has enough reserves to last the period of time which is needed to import gas from other parts of the world.

    2) The EU and Russia never have been at war because Russia has never aggressed an EU memberstate. You are now steering away from your initial point, "Russia controls EU because of gas" and enter hypothetical war scenarios which have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

    Because regarding the topic at hand is not as one dimensional as you initialy tried to make it out to be.

    By the way, the entire warscenario RU-vs-EU is something we can gladly discuss in another thread, here I would appreciate to stay on topic.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Pimp of Pimps View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Nationalism is rooted in Western culture, hence it being the origin point for modern nationalism. The modern concept of a West itself only came about as a reaction to the Ottomans in the first place and it was against a more pressing outside force that they somewhat united.

    Other regions might be more or less nationalistic than individual countries in the West, but it's not rooted in their culture as deeply. Nationalism, for example, is foreign to Islam so we'll eventually see it leaving the Muslim world entirely.

    The only way to unite is based on ideology, every other type of unity is contingent on material factors.
    Not quite though. Ottoman threat ended in the 17th century. Nationalism was born much later. Ottoman threat was usually countered with calls for crusades and Holy Leagues, little of which ever materialized. Some european states even had alliances with the ottomans and were largely divided because of their differences despite the risk. Furthermore, the west has some of the best models like France-Germany or England-France, who have fought for hundreds of years or whose rivalry goes back centuries but now work together as one and ignore their differences.

    Will need to elaborate and be more specific on that. Which countries or regions for example?

    I'd agree. However it's not the only thing that brings people together. The threat to a country has many times caused said population to abandon their differences and come together, most notably, pre-Napoleonic France.

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by R View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Can you elaborate how you think we can not import from continents outside of europe? When Russia decides to no longer receive an important part of their GDP due to the gas transfers with the EU, what is stopping us, the EU, to receive them from the asian continent (Iran, SA) or the North American continent (USA)? Can you elaborate on that?

    Your argument appears to me as if European and Russian Gas is a "just-in-time" delivery, where the EU happens to just spend as much as it receives. This is not the case. As I stated before, the European Union has gas reserves to keep the machine going for months. It allows for wiggle room when the diplomatic situation tightens.

    While Russia loses income directly and immediately, the EU has enough reserves to last the period of time which is needed to import gas from other parts of the world.

    2) The EU and Russia never have been at war because Russia has never aggressed an EU memberstate. You are now steering away from your initial point, "Russia controls EU because of gas" and enter hypothetical war scenarios which have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

    Because regarding the topic at hand is not as one dimensional as you initialy tried to make it out to be.

    By the way, the entire warscenario RU-vs-EU is something we can gladly discuss in another thread, here I would appreciate to stay on topic.
    Why do you keep dodging the point?

    Do you realise how much oil is actually worth? Do you think other countries are going to just disrupt the oil they export because we suddenly need to be bailed out? There isnt enough oil we could export that could cover Russias share of it and if there was we'd financially bankrupt ourselves trying to get ahold of it

    Where is this for months argument even coming from? How do you know thats how long the reserves would last for? Again how do you even ration the oil in this situation? Do you even realise how terrifying it would be to have the entire half of the continent shut down because Russia wont do business with us?

    Russia is no where near as reliant on the EU to survive as the EU is on Russia.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by White View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Why do you keep dodging the point?

    Do you realise how much oil is actually worth? Do you think other countries are going to just disrupt the oil they export because we suddenly need to be bailed out? There isnt enough oil we could export that could cover Russias share of it and if there was we'd financially bankrupt ourselves trying to get ahold of it

    Where is this for months argument even coming from? Again how do you even ration the oil in this situation? Do you even realise how terrifying it would be to have the entire half of the continent shut down because Russia wont do business with us?

    Russia is no where near as reliant on the EU to survive as the EU is on Russia.
    What point exactly am I dodging?

    Your initicial claim was, Russia controls the EU because they deliver gas to the EU. My counter argument is the following:

    a) Assuming, for whatever reason, the gas transfer from Russia to the EU stop - the EU is not suddenly shut down. This is a fact, as you can read everywhere.

    b) In the time, the EU has to use its reserves it will sign transfer deals with other nations. I already gave enough examples who these countries can be.

    c) Signing transfer deals with other countries is not "bailing out" nor is it "disrupting their export" how do you come to this conclusion? The reason the European Union uses russian gas in such large quantities is not because they are the only ones available. It is because they offer the best conditions (prices, delivery ways etc.) I once again encourage you to inform yourself about, especially, the attempted replacement of russian gas by US gas. Just type in "north stream 2 US sanction bill" or similar things and you may realize that EU is not in a position of weakness but in fact a position of strenght, as it is a net importeur in a world full of net exporteurs (US, Iran, SA, Russia etc.). Comparing it with a bailing out scenario is baseless

    d) Unlike you stated, russia is NOT caring for 40% of the EUs energy/gas. They are merely providing for 40% of our imports. And our imports are 60% of our total energy requirements.

    This means the overall impact of russian delivered gas is around 20% of the EUs net imports. It is beyond me how you are of the believe that the EU, the biggest financial bloc in the world, would not be able to replace 20% of its net energy report from one provider with 20% from other providers.

    Russia has occasionally disrupted gas flow in countries like ukraine for political pressure. However these countries are mere transition countries and not the actual final destination for the gas.

    Another thing you seem to forget is that the European gas imports are responsible for 25% of russias GDP. So while they immediately would lose 25% of their GDP, the European Union simply takes their money elsewhere.

    How anyone can try and twist this as "russia controls eu due to gas" is beyond me.

    In todays world there is no zero sum "i win you lose" scenario. Halting of gas transfers will have impact on both sides. But the EU would be the one with better alternatives in a world full of exporteurs, while russia shut down access to their biggest customer without an alternative.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Whitebeard View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Not quite though. Ottoman threat ended in the 17th century. Nationalism was born much later. Ottoman threat was usually countered with calls for crusades and Holy Leagues, little of which ever materialized. Some european states even had alliances with the ottomans and were largely divided because of their differences despite the risk. Furthermore, the west has some of the best models like France-Germany or England-France, who have fought for hundreds of years or whose rivalry goes back centuries but now work together as one and ignore their differences.

    Will need to elaborate and be more specific on that. Which countries or regions for example?

    I'd agree. However it's not the only thing that brings people together. The threat to a country has many times caused said population to abandon their differences and come together, most notably, pre-Napoleonic France.
    I didn't say that nationalism came about as a result of the Ottomans, I said the concept of the West did. One could say that was almost a type of proto-nationalism, but the concept of the West predates the modern concept of nationalism.

    It's also a huge misconception that the Ottoman threat ended after the 17th century, though that was admittingly the beginning of the decline. That's a topic for another time though.

    The point is that the nationalistic bond is the weakest of bonds. It's also highly problematic, hence the Prophet likening it to biting your father's genitals. Its nature is that it appears in the face of an outside threat and once that threat is perceived to be gone the bond begins to dissipate. This is because the bond of nationalism is ultimately tied to fairly arbitrary grounds and in the absence of a threat that requires unification the smallest differences will result in otherization of people that once considered themselves as one people.

    In this instance the people of the EU, even if they combined, would never consider themselves one people. in the absence of war of some kind they'll turn on one another. There's a reason modern governments always feed the people the idea of the boogeyman. Whether Communism, Hitler, the Taliban or ISIS there always been to be a boogeyman to scare the people in to unification.
    No.​

  9. #29
    Banned pizzadust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    16,207
    Nationalism is rooted in human culture, and Christianity rejected it before Islam. The west has always had a tradition of moving towards universalism with some backlashes like fascism springing up here and there. Universalism is the basis of the western tradition in truth though. For example, concepts like human rights already put into practice an anti-nationalist and Universalist spirit that can't be called any thing other than the western tradition. The western left has always been universalist. The very concept of the EU at all is already a move away from nationalism. Not sure where all the "the west can't do this or that" comes from, sounds like pure bias to me.

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Heart View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Nationalism is rooted in human culture, and Christianity rejected it before Islam. The west has always had a tradition of moving towards universalism with some backlashes like fascism springing up here and there. Universalism is the basis of the western tradition in truth though. For example, concepts like human rights already put into practice an anti-nationalist and Universalist spirit that can't be called any thing other than the western tradition. The western left has always been universalist. The very concept of the EU at all is already a move away from nationalism. Not sure where all the "the west can't do this or that" comes from, sounds like pure bias to me.
    Nationalism is rooted in human culture, but so is racism. Being rooted in human culture isn't a measure of good or bad.

    The 'universalism' of the modern West is one where one standard is applied to everyone across the world regardless of their beliefs or any other factors. So democracy is good and anyone who disagrees needs to be dealt with. Everyone HAS to accept that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality or they are bigots. Every nation must allow people to dress according to Western standards otherwise they are backwards. Forcing people to adhere to your ideals isn't moving forward, it's backwards. Not too much different than forcing religion on people by the sword, except now it's bombs and bullets.

    Not that other parts of the world don't have similar problems, they just aren't the focus of discussion right now.
    No.​

  11. #31
    Banned pizzadust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    16,207
    Quote Originally Posted by Pimp of Pimps View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Nationalism is rooted in human culture, but so is racism. Being rooted in human culture isn't a measure of good or bad.

    The 'universalism' of the modern West is one where one standard is applied to everyone across the world regardless of their beliefs or any other factors. So democracy is good and anyone who disagrees needs to be dealt with. Everyone HAS to accept that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality or they are bigots. Every nation must allow people to dress according to Western standards otherwise they are backwards. Forcing people to adhere to your ideals isn't moving forward, it's backwards. Not too much different than forcing religion on people by the sword, except now it's bombs and bullets.

    Not that other parts of the world don't have similar problems, they just aren't the focus of discussion right now.
    you're missing my point, which is that you're making nationalism out to be a specific western problem and not a global one(or at least appear that way in the thread).

    No one is getting bombed for how they dress, they're getting bombed for reasons not ideological but this is far removed from my point and the examples I provided. Its also far removed from the West's potential to have trans national unity. Beyond the lack of relevance to my post and the topic tho, is the fact your claims are just wrong. No one is bombed for not liking homosexuals or for how they're dressed. Most western bombing is American bombing and tends to be directed at terrorism. This isn't to call it justified since its been shown to be a poor method of handling terrorism, but to show that the reason isn't what you're claiming it to be. The closer comparison to what you're saying is the instances of supporting democratic uprisings, but this is a lot different from what you're claiming it to be despite it having its own failings. You're taking what's primarily one countries actions in contemporary history, misrepresenting and exaggerating the cause of this action to fit your point, while making a point that's largely not relevant to the discussion.

    Now to get back to the actual point, I think currently the west is undergoing a very nationalistic period, as in within the last 10 years, but the western tradition as a whole has been moving further and further away from nationalism, with some backlashes such as currently. I'm not sure how you can get around stuff like human rights(which finds its roots both in western philosophy and Christianity and thus has a very long western historical lineage), the existence of the EU itself, perhaps even the UN, as well as the economic and ideological unity(not perfect unity but rather interconnectedness) shared by the western world as being any thing other than a move away from nationalism. Nationalism is obviously still a big problem in the west, but my disagreement comes in you saying it's impossible for the west to move past that because it contradicts western culture, when the west has a historical progression of moving further and further away from nationalism both ideologically and in practice, nationalism itself is a rejection of the very existence of a transnational western culture. The west isn't predetermined or limited by its history to be cursed towards nationalism, if anything western culture would say the opposite.
    Last edited by pizzadust; 06-26-2018 at 03:40 PM.

  12. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Heart View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    you're missing my point, which is that you're making nationalism out to be a specific western problem and not a global one(or at least appear that way in the thread).

    No one is getting bombed for how they dress, they're getting bombed for reasons not ideological but this is far removed from my point and the examples I provided. Its also far removed from the West's potential to have trans national unity. Beyond the lack of relevance to my post and the topic tho, is the fact your claims are just wrong. No one is bombed for not liking homosexuals or for how they're dressed. Most western bombing is American bombing and tends to be directed at terrorism. This isn't to call it justified since its been shown to be a poor method of handling terrorism, but to show that the reason isn't what you're claiming it to be. The closer comparison to what you're saying is the instances of supporting democratic uprisings, but this is a lot different from what you're claiming it to be despite it having its own failings. You're taking what's primarily one countries actions in contemporary history, misrepresenting and exaggerating the cause of this action to fit your point, while making a point that's largely not relevant to the discussion.

    Now to get back to the actual point, I think currently the west is undergoing a very nationalistic period, as in within the last 10 years, but the western tradition as a whole has been moving further and further away from nationalism, with some backlashes such as currently. I'm not sure how you can get around stuff like human rights(which finds its roots both in western philosophy and Christianity and thus has a very long western historical lineage), the existence of the EU itself, perhaps even the UN, as well as the economic and ideological unity(not perfect unity but rather interconnectedness) shared by the western world as being any thing other than a move away from nationalism. Nationalism is obviously still a big problem in the west, but my disagreement comes in you saying it's impossible for the west to move past that because it contradicts western culture, when the west has a historical progression of moving further and further away from nationalism both ideologically and in practice, nationalism itself is a rejection of the very existence of a transnational western culture. The west isn't predetermined or limited by its history to be cursed towards nationalism, if anything western culture would say the opposite.


    It is a global problem, but I'm focusing on the West because we're talking about the EU and because modern nationalism came from the West.

    You're missing the point. No one is getting bombed for how they dress or for disagreeing with homosexuality. However, certain kingpin countries (the US being the best example) try their best to get other nations to adhere to their ideological and economic framework because it makes it easier to control them. Thus, a war could be waged on a foreign land for economical reasons, for example, but part and parcel with that is the importation or retention of the political and ideological framework of the invading country. So the US will tell people that the government that will be setup after they leave a certain area has to be democratic and nothing else will be accepted. Colonization starts with the mind.

    Nationalism as a whole is waning. It is a phase that is getting closer and closer to dissipating with the rise of the global culture, the internet etc.
    Last edited by Pimp of Pimps; 06-26-2018 at 03:54 PM.
    No.​

  13. #33
    Banned pizzadust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    16,207
    Quote Originally Posted by Pimp of Pimps View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote


    It is a global problem, but I'm focusing on the West because we're talking about the EU and because modern nationalism came from the West.

    You're missing the point. No one is getting bombed for how they dress or for disagreeing with homosexuality. However, certain kingpin countries (the US being the best example) try their bet to get other nations to adhere to their ideological and economic framework because it makes it easier to control them. Thus, a war could be waged on a foreign land for economical reasons, for example, but part and parcel with that is the importation or retention of the political and ideological framework of the invading country. So the US will tell people that the government that will be setup after they leave a certain area has to be democratic and nothing else will be accepted. Colonization starts with the mind.

    Nationalism as a whole is waning. It is a phase that is getting closer and closer to dissipating with the rise of the global culture, the internet etc.
    and who and what has led both the ideological, technological and economical developments that have started this trend of nationalism waning out?

    - - - Updated - - -

    And what's this global culture if not predominantly western

  14. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by R View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    What point exactly am I dodging?

    Your initicial claim was, Russia controls the EU because they deliver gas to the EU. My counter argument is the following:

    a) Assuming, for whatever reason, the gas transfer from Russia to the EU stop - the EU is not suddenly shut down. This is a fact, as you can read everywhere.

    b) In the time, the EU has to use its reserves it will sign transfer deals with other nations. I already gave enough examples who these countries can be.

    c) Signing transfer deals with other countries is not "bailing out" nor is it "disrupting their export" how do you come to this conclusion? The reason the European Union uses russian gas in such large quantities is not because they are the only ones available. It is because they offer the best conditions (prices, delivery ways etc.) I once again encourage you to inform yourself about, especially, the attempted replacement of russian gas by US gas. Just type in "north stream 2 US sanction bill" or similar things and you may realize that EU is not in a position of weakness but in fact a position of strenght, as it is a net importeur in a world full of net exporteurs (US, Iran, SA, Russia etc.). Comparing it with a bailing out scenario is baseless

    d) Unlike you stated, russia is NOT caring for 40% of the EUs energy/gas. They are merely providing for 40% of our imports. And our imports are 60% of our total energy requirements.

    This means the overall impact of russian delivered gas is around 20% of the EUs net imports. It is beyond me how you are of the believe that the EU, the biggest financial bloc in the world, would not be able to replace 20% of its net energy report from one provider with 20% from other providers.

    Russia has occasionally disrupted gas flow in countries like ukraine for political pressure. However these countries are mere transition countries and not the actual final destination for the gas.

    Another thing you seem to forget is that the European gas imports are responsible for 25% of russias GDP. So while they immediately would lose 25% of their GDP, the European Union simply takes their money elsewhere.

    How anyone can try and twist this as "russia controls eu due to gas" is beyond me.

    In todays world there is no zero sum "i win you lose" scenario. Halting of gas transfers will have impact on both sides. But the EU would be the one with better alternatives in a world full of exporteurs, while russia shut down access to their biggest customer without an alternative.
    It just seems apparent to me that you dont know much about the subject, which is fine but you keep jumping to try and protect your rather indefensible position. First you try to convince me that the EU will be fine if Russia stopped supplying us with oil and we could simply get our oil from someplace like America even though we literally dont even exchange oil with them at all, and like much of Europe, America doesnt export its oil it imports it so the idea they would just export oil to Europe is ludicrous.

    Its a fact you may not be immediately shut down, but there is little difference between being immediately shut down and being shut down in a month or two. Like on what planet do you live on that you think any government could get away with putting their entire infrastructure at risk?

    There is no supplier in the world who could meet our demands in the way Russia can especially when wed have to export that oil from countries half way across the world and what would our bargaining tactic be? 'Russia has completely cut us off so we're desperate for oil plz give us some', its completely out of the question that we could find suppliers who can offer us the same affordability anf reliability as Russia much less one that could meet the entirety of Europes needs without bank rupting the continent in the long term.

    Itd probably be the biggest and, quite honestly stupidest risk, the EU would ever take and thats why it would never happen. You still havent explained to me how that oil would be rationed in the mean time and how the entire continent probably wouldnt fall into bitter scraps over who gets what share of the oil

    Like the fact that you even think we can sign transfer deals is laughable in and of itself, as if any transfer negotiation would ever be that simple with all due respect. If there was an alternative from getting our 40% supply from anywhere besides Russia its clear that we would have went down that route a long time ago. Do you think the Eu likes to be dependent on Russia for most of its oil needs? No it doesnt and thats why the EU is pretty much powerless against Russia.

  15. #35
    blackdragonstory's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Croatia
    Posts
    3,280
    Quote Originally Posted by White View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It just seems apparent to me that you dont know much about the subject, which is fine but you keep jumping to try and protect your rather indefensible position. First you try to convince me that the EU will be fine if Russia stopped supplying us with oil and we could simply get our oil from someplace like America even though we literally dont even exchange oil with them at all, and like much of Europe, America doesnt export its oil it imports it so the idea they would just export oil to Europe is ludicrous.

    Its a fact you may not be immediately shut down, but there is little difference between being immediately shut down and being shut down in a month or two. Like on what planet do you live on that you think any government could get away with putting their entire infrastructure at risk?

    There is no supplier in the world who could meet our demands in the way Russia can especially when wed have to export that oil from countries half way across the world and what would our bargaining tactic be? 'Russia has completely cut us off so we're desperate for oil plz give us some', its completely out of the question that we could find suppliers who can offer us the same affordability anf reliability as Russia much less one that could meet the entirety of Europes needs without bank rupting the continent in the long term.

    Itd probably be the biggest and, quite honestly stupidest risk, the EU would ever take and thats why it would never happen. You still havent explained to me how that oil would be rationed in the mean time and how the entire continent probably wouldnt fall into bitter scraps over who gets what share of the oil

    Like the fact that you even think we can sign transfer deals is laughable in and of itself, as if any transfer negotiation would ever be that simple with all due respect. If there was an alternative from getting our 40% supply from anywhere besides Russia its clear that we would have went down that route a long time ago. Do you think the Eu likes to be dependent on Russia for most of its oil needs? No it doesnt and thats why the EU is pretty much powerless against Russia.
    Which is why we should invest in other ways to power our cars.
    And I think eu is already thinking about it and if putin started blackmailing eu it would be short time before we only have like electric cars or hybrids of electric and sunlight powered cars.
    Sure it would be expensive at first but very beneficial to eu either way.

    And secondly it would fck up russia because they would lose a lot of money especially since they are counting on this money.
    The more putin pushes eu the sooner we will have electric cars.

  16. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by White View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It just seems apparent to me that you dont know much about the subject, which is fine but you keep jumping to try and protect your rather indefensible position. First you try to convince me that the EU will be fine if Russia stopped supplying us with oil and we could simply get our oil from someplace like America even though we literally dont even exchange oil with them at all, and like much of Europe, America doesnt export its oil it imports it so the idea they would just export oil to Europe is ludicrous.

    Its a fact you may not be immediately shut down, but there is little difference between being immediately shut down and being shut down in a month or two. Like on what planet do you live on that you think any government could get away with putting their entire infrastructure at risk?

    There is no supplier in the world who could meet our demands in the way Russia can especially when wed have to export that oil from countries half way across the world and what would our bargaining tactic be? 'Russia has completely cut us off so we're desperate for oil plz give us some', its completely out of the question that we could find suppliers who can offer us the same affordability anf reliability as Russia much less one that could meet the entirety of Europes needs without bank rupting the continent in the long term.

    Itd probably be the biggest and, quite honestly stupidest risk, the EU would ever take and thats why it would never happen. You still havent explained to me how that oil would be rationed in the mean time and how the entire continent probably wouldnt fall into bitter scraps over who gets what share of the oil

    Like the fact that you even think we can sign transfer deals is laughable in and of itself, as if any transfer negotiation would ever be that simple with all due respect. If there was an alternative from getting our 40% supply from anywhere besides Russia its clear that we would have went down that route a long time ago. Do you think the Eu likes to be dependent on Russia for most of its oil needs? No it doesnt and thats why the EU is pretty much powerless against Russia.
    This is weird. I have a very similar feeling towards you and your clear lack of knowledge on the matter. It appears as if you tried to claim some random, factual incorrect based stuff and now fight a rearguard battle once you realized you are faced with the correct approch on the matter.

    For example, you try and insinuate that I somehow try and state that the "EU will be fine", whereas in reality I, in my post just before yours, argued that in such a situation no bloc, neither the russian nor the european will come out without an impact. If I were to argue the EU would be "just fine", I would instead have said that regardless what happens, the EU will carry on as usual no questions asked.

    With that not being the case, your first passage here makes no sense whatsoever and it appears as if you have intentionally ignored that part.

    Another instance which tells me you have not fully grasped that gas/energy is a customer market and not a provider market is the fact that you appear to have such a problem with understanding the ridicoulus attempts from the US administration, who even state these things in their sanction bills against russia, to export their gas to europe. Something Europe is not willing to accept due to the fact that the conditions are not competitive compared to russia. You strike me as very oblivious if you believe that a country such as the US, which tries its hardest to export their gas to us - to an extent that Trump himself demanded for europeans to stop receiving gas from Russia - and instead buy the american ones - will not immediately be ready to fill the gap

    You seem to not even be aware of that fact, otherwise your entire chain of argument would likely not even have come to pass.

    Moving on to your next point - there being no supplier like Russia - for once, you are mixing up several things here. You are acting as if Russia is the sole provider, which it is not. And you are acting as if once Russia is out of the equation, it only has to be replaced by another sole provider. Which is also not the case.

    Big players like the US sure want to replace russia in providing Europe with gas, but whether or not they actually can, thats another thing.

    As such it is, like i stated multiple times, european decision to fill the gap not only with one, untested, provider but increase already existing supply chains with countries from all around the globe. It is not a game of : 1 player is out and has to be replaced by another player (even if the US desperately wants to be that player), but instead: 1 player is out, who from all the other players around want a piece of their cake.

    Which is incidentaly also our "bargaining tactic" - look, there are dozens of countries who export energy. One of them, our biggest, decided to no longer do it. What conditions can you offer to us? If you dont want to partake we move on to the next provider.

    Surely, no one will provide as cheap prices as russia, but that is not the point in this hypothetical scenario. The point is that while Russia irefutable loses the biggest market in the world and a quarter of their GDP - the EU either increases its ties with already existing providers, which have a reliable provider system for many years, similar to Russia, only not as much volume, or the EU will finally accept the US offers to import their gas. These are options you simply can not deny unless you lived the last century under a rock and never heard of the US plan to desperately export to the EU.

    Also, what kind of "risk" are you talking about? Surely, the EU, as a capitalistic construct will not cut off the russian gas imports, simply out of economic reasons. It is when Russia unilateraly decides to do so, that the EU has cards to play, whereas Russia has none. What are they doing? Stopping to export to the EU does not magically increase the demand for their gas in other parts of the world. Like I said. Its not a provider market we live in.

    Earlier you said I try and defend an "indefensible position". However when taking a look at the facts (which I somehow question you have done) you would realize that your approach on the matter is what is indefensible.

    I mean, you DO say signing transfer deals is laughable - while in reality this is the EUs biggest strenght and they have signed deals regarding comparable and exact the same things throughout the world.

    Also you are still using the incorrect 40% value, when in reality it is around 20% of the net energy requirements, which is a huge difference and should be used correctly.

    There are many voices in the EU, some, like Germany, who in half a century never had even a single problem with any gas transfer regardless the political surroundings, argue why would there ever be a reason to cut out russia? They are the cheapest, they are reliable even during the kosovo war, the georgia war, the ukraine crisis most recently. All this reliability has lead to, I mentioned it several times already, projects like north stream 2.

    Russia is an important part in the european energy sector. But it is not irreplacable and it is by no means in control of the EU. Stating so shows the complete lack of knowledge one has on the global affairs.

  17. #37
    Lets just stop this here, I feel like the essays are just getting longer and its subtly escalating into shit slinging.

  18. #38
    yeha you are right. this likely goes nowehere and we become more tense and personal. good offer which i will gladly take.

    just out of curiousity tho - what are your thoughts on the OP question? pro or against a united army from the EU member states?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •