Who knows perhaps some of those brand spankin new “advisers” will be at the right place at the wrong time? Stay tuned for a plane crash or two in Okinawa and Diego Garcia....
The best part was when Zelensky met directly with MIC executives. They don't even hide the puppet strings anymore. US taxpayer money goes to Congress, which launders it through Raytheon and Zelensky. 10% for the big guy! All part of the color revolution playbook: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/how-to-execute-a-color-revolution
No one wants to shower with Joe anymore, it's worse than being molested by a sun-aged rubber chicken. However zElenskyi will do anything for a line of coke and another mansion.
Also quite amusing how our SecDef is openly on the board of Raytheon, and heavily invested in at least 1 fund that profits from war, along with Blinken.
This is an economic war, a war of economic attrition. It isn't over until the fat woman the fat woman (Yellen) sings. Ukraine will dig in and morph like a caterpillar. Can the US afford more debt for infinity?
The US today is largely a service economy, it has managed to push their debt to the lower classes who have been strategically impoverished more and more while the rich have gotten insanely richer and all covered by them running the world economy like their own private casino.
But I think they've pushed it too far with this hybrid world war against Russia and China now, people underestimate just how significant de-dollarization and economic independence Russia and the BRICS are pushing actually will be long term. Uncle Sam arrogantly over-played his hand this time, people are leaving the Casino.
" it has managed to push their debt to the lower classes who have been strategically impoverished" , it's not just confined to the USA. Whole fuck'n countries are pushed to the brink. One example of many , the 'Structural Adjustment' packages of the 80's. Fucked Mexico, flooded USA with illegal migrants to this day. Many more exapamples. Global impoverishment is a weapon of polical control for Langley folk. Prof Sami Amin Al-Arian talks about this in the vid below. Also explains why no oil weapon against Israel (hint, not the 70's any more, USA and other non Opec producers are likely to push out Saudis if they emgargo oil-'market structural adjustment'. Embargo ends, Saudis have lost and aint getting back the same share of global oil market-so NO embargo. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puEVdyUJqH4
BillyBunt -- I think that this video's conclusion "that non-Opec producers are likely to push out Saudi's if they embargo oil' is likely incorrect (or substantially exaggerated) for a couple of reasons:
1) We have to keep in mind that although we often think of 'oil & gas' as one type of energy market, natural gas and an oil are very distinct, separate markets (oil and gas have different end uses, customers, suppliers, and market dynamics). I raise this point about natural gas because although I think the video is incorrect in citing market share loss as a deterrent for an embargo on oil , I do believe that fear of 'market share' loss is a relatively decent explanation as to thy there wouldn't likely be an embargo on natural gas from the Gulf. Embargoing gas (although powerful in the short term) would lead to market share changes, oil not so much.
2) Part of the reason why a Gulf embargo on oil exports would be different (than gas and from 1973 with oil) is that there really is no such thing as one oil market -- there are many many different 'little' oil markets in the world today, because there are so many different (and basically incompatible) grades of oil. Light, sweet crude (low viscosity, low sulfur oil) is best for gasoline and light distillates -- and comes from specific areas of the world (and not others). US fracking oil for example is almost exclusively of this variety. Heavier oils (like those more typically found in the Gulf) work better for diesel fuel, lubricants, and heavier oil applications. Furthermore, the refineries that convert crude oil into refined products are almost always 'grade-specific' -- meaning you can't run US light sweet crude through a refinery used to running Saudi or Iranian oil (the refineries are tweaked and optimized for just one type of input). Changing the refinery is a long and expensive process. An embargo by one set of producers (say the Gulf states) would cause massive supply shocks and price changes in the world. In the medium term, producers of roughly similar types of oil might be able to expand production (if they are not at capacity at the moment). Sources of substitute oil might include Russia or Venezuela -- however even these types of oil (that is in some ways 'similar' to Saudi oil) may not work in the refineries optimized for Saudi crude -- for example, Venezuelan oil is very very heavy and high in sulfur content, which needs specialized processing). So, not all oil is 'equal'.
3) Aside from economic 'substitution' problems, you also have the problem of 'spare capacity' --- could Nigeria or Angola or US Shale producers actually be able to produce more oil than they are producing today to make up for a Saudi embargo? This 'surge' in production is somewhat doubtful, especially in the short term. In the last several decades, African producers used to consistently exceed their production quotas (and in essence cheat their own oil cartel, because the nations behind this oil production really 'needed the money'). However, in the last decade, these nation states have consistently under-produced their quotas. Why? Big factors behind the inability to pump more is a) waste and corruption (a significant amount of Nigerian production is 'lost' in transit from well-head to tanker and used rather wastefully domestically and not therefore available for export) and b) lack of investment in new wells, pipelines, and staff to get the oils out of the ground and to market (all this ESG talk in finance has been resulting in substantial cut-backs in worldwide oil & gas exploration and exploitation investment). Something similar is true with US Shale oil -- investments in new 'pads' has been very very disciplined (The original oil lease holders on these shale wells invested in wells and pumped like crazy but ended up losing a great deal of money when oil prices crashed. The new owners of these shale wells who 'took over' the management of these companies or bought out the leases during the original owners bankruptcies have been much more disciplines with regard to 'return on investment'. Pumping above your long term capacity and investment plan is not usually a good financial idea, even for short term gain -- plus Shale oil is 'rapidly depleting - i.e. gone in a few short years -- and new 'good, promising' shale leases are in diminishing supply) -- so that too is a powerful disincentive for 'pumping more' oil just to 'gain share'.
4) There are also international and domestic reasons for the Gulf to not cut back on oil exports. Internationally, the loss of Gulf oil via embargo (if broadly applied) would affect 'neutral' players (like China) that are in fact 'friendly' to the Gulf states. This might be counter-productive to what the Gulf states are trying to achieve. Even a narrow embargo (that applied only to the West and Israel) would still result in price spikes in the sought after global commodities that would dramatically increase cost for China and others in the near and medium term (shielding China and the Global South was not nearly the priority it is today back in 1973). This knock-on effect may work against the foreign policy interests of those creating the boycott.
5) Internally, say within the Gulf States, there is also a huge problem with boycotts because no oil production means no welfare payments internally. In 1973, the Gulf States had no where near the standard of living that residents there enjoy today (urbanization, widespread electrification and air-conditioning, very high levels of private automobile ownership, etc). In 1973, the Gulf states had not yet to build the extensive and very expensive social welfare and subsidization efforts that they have today. Saudi Arabia in particular would have trouble cutting oil production because that loss of revenue directly affects internal stability, high debt load, and economic development & defense efforts.
6) There are 'second' and 'third' order effects to also consider. Shutting down production will raise prices in the short term (since oil supply curves are pretty inflexible and demand curves are steep and inflexible as well). Higher prices may lead to 'new entrants' or 'increased production' by some oil producers in the intermediate or long term, but in the short term these higher prices will almost certainly push the global economy into recession. A global recession, because of oil shortages, may then 'over-correct' (due to 'demand destruction').and thus lead to a collapse of oil prices (such things have happened in the past). In the meantime, all kinds of global chaos happens which might lead to more wars or financial or economic collapse (and risk the assets that Gulf and others have invested their 'savings' into).
7) Finally, an effort to 'shut in' oil production in the near and medium term can and often does permanently damage the oil well itself - potentially forever diminishing the amount of oil you get out of a drilled well. Getting the oil out of the ground is a lot more complex than sticking a straw into a pressure filled balloon and just turning on and off the spigot. Stopping or scaling back the outflow of a drilled well, once it is being tapped, can lead to all kinds of complicated back-pressure and geologic 'collapses' that make re-drilling the well all over again necessary if you want to restart production. Sometimes, in some wells and geographies this isn't so hard to do -- in others, stopping outflow means that the well is 'done' (regardless of how much more oil that specific well could have produced if kept open). And given the quantities of physical oil we are talking about, storage in tanks or tankers is not really an option either.
Putting all this together, I am not saying that an oil (or gas) embargo is out of the question -- I am just saying that it's just not an easy or inexpensive geopolitical tool to use. It's costly and indiscriminate in its effect and that it is these factors, not fear of market share loss, that likely dominates Gulf oil decision making. That said, if the price to doing nothing (and letting the Palestinian tragedy continue) is too high, well then, things like embargo can happen. However, to dismiss an embargo because of 'market share concerns' is way too simplistic.
Thank you for this detailed analysis, Martin. It does seem that redirecting flows of oil from Saudi Arabia, Russia and Iran could have a big effect, since all refineries and markets are operating so efficiently, and without any production-chain slack these days. "Disruption" of supplies to Israel and "allied" countries could increase prices and make supply less consistent, as has happened to Europe recently, by its own design.
You bet. "Big effect" would definitely be an understatement. The US (in aggregate) produces almost enough oil for its own consumption (but not the right mix of oil between light and heavy, etc) --- so right now the US is actually still importing Russia heavier oil (to use in its refineries) while it simultaneously exports surplus lighter oil worldwide. Curtailing or redirecting or substantially restricting (or repricing) oil flows from Russia, Saudi Arabia (and the other Gulf States) and Iran would absolutely crush the world economy and might precipitate a financial market collapse in the West. The effect of such a closure or re-direction might even be considered a casus belli, maybe even prompting attempts to 'seize' the oil in extremis (remember the US has run down its Strategic Petroleum Reserve to the lowest level since it was created in the late 1970's). Would a war automatically be the result of an embargo -- no. Could it escalate into one -- yes. Could that local war escalate into a global conflict across the superpowers - yes. And this is just me reacting to the effects of such an embargo on the US -- Europe would be road-kill right from the very beginning (no substantial strategic reserves, little to no home-grown supply, no alternative sources of supply). This is probably another set of reasons on why an embargo is so problematic --- using it could be 'nuclear in effect' on the West (and might therefore even invite a similarly powerful but 'less in effect' kind of response from the West, if you know what I mean). It could go wrong for everybody very quickly if the players involved are not careful and lucky.
An inevitable deduction from the consistent findings of enriched Uranium in samples from Gaza, Lebanon and Iraq, is that a neutron weapon of some kind has been employed since the second Gulf War, and possible before then. This is an Israeli (and US) secret weapon, as was reported by Robert Fisk in The Independent in 2006 [7]. The increases in congenital effects seen in the Fallujah population [8,9,10] and also in Gaza [20,21] can plausibly have resulted from exposure to neutrons as well as to the Uranium particulate aerosols. The weapon is ideal for armies employed in methodological destruction both of fighters hidden in urban environments (where neutrons pass through walls) and for any state which has the aim of destroying the civilian population using a genetic mutation weapon (cancer, fertility loss, birth defects). It is, however, a nuclear weapon, and those deploying it are using a nuclear weapon against civilian populations as part of a project to destroy an enemy state population without acknowledging this. This is a war crime.
P.S. now that Kissinger has past, an 'anecdote' from the 1973-1974 oil embargo recently emerged (via Jim Rickard). According to Jim, he was part of a White House / State Department planning session on how to respond to the embargo that resulting from the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. Item #1 on the agenda was how to best seize the Saudi oil fields and depose the Gulf monarchies. Rickard credits Kissinger with the insight that it might be best to first 'co-opt' the Saudis (via the Petro-dollar alliance) rather than move directly to military action. In hindsight, the Petro-dollar initiative was success (and hence war avoided) -- but apparently war was much closer than commonly assumed.
China is by far the largest energy consumer. ThecEU is a declining energy user. The USA has been stagnate for 25 years. All that has to happen to break the past dynamic is for another large energy user to come online. Everything is shifting East. BRICS will be the death of Western imperialism. The Saudi will move East too. India is ramping up. When they surpass the USA and EU the world will look a whole lot different.
Not just the US, but most if not all of the western developed countries are now service economies, all paid for with debt attached to property.
Which is a good time to mention that the whole world got an extra 19 trillion dollars about a year ago or so, under the cover of "COVID stimulus". The point of that had very little to do with COVID, it was was so central banks could raise interest rates above zero again and heal the debt economy that was in dire trouble since 2008, mortal danger since 2015, and literally collapsing in 2019.
Until that money was added there was no way they could have ever raised interest rates above zero again without collapsing everything.
And like magic, interest rates have risen at the fastest rate in history and everything is mostly ok, thanks to the extra 19 trillion dollars inflating the debt away.
The 'magic' is likely only temporary --- not everyone is so optimistic that 'things are fine'. So I agree with you but would go one step further and suggest that the 'collapse' has been deferred (and made worse) not avoided.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not optimistic at all. I was just pointing out that over the last couple of decades the west has transformed itself from a productive powerhouse into an economic veneer, painted on top of the banks.
And it was all coming apart.
If nothing else we do need to respect the ruling elite's opportunism: the trouble between Ukraine and Russia, in my opinion, gave them an opportunity to try and grab at Russia's energy reserves, and the accidental release of a bioweapon, in my opinion, gave them the opportunity to bandage up the global economy.
I would add, that many Western countries have a bloated public sector aka state employees with parasitic private companies attached to it. Germany has a brutal tax weight for the average single citizen, up to 80% all in all, some other Western countries are also going in that route. So if you push that further, you will get societal disruptions and other non-aligned politicians. I can't fathom how bad that will get, when commodities like oil, gas, food stuff get more expensive every year, that will be the end of the West, because Russia and China have far less tax weight for their average citizens it seems. So they can up the ante anytime, the West, not so much.
According to MMT we can afford debt for infinity. I can't wait to go to the store to spend my first US hundred trillion dollar note on a pack of gum and find out I am short.
Elenskies is riding on the freeway of love in his pink Cadillac heading off the high road steaming off the high cliffs and he be fittin to crash onto the blackRock cliffs and shatter his comedy routine
As Kennedy once said, winning has many fathers, loss is an orphan...No one wants to be on record sending large amounts of money to a sure loser, with elections coming up....
My Spidey senses went on high alert when none of the usual cuckservatives in the Senate (Romney, Collins, Eye-patch McCain, etc.) back stabbed us. There is always a couple to thwart whatever would benefit us so this was a goose bumps moment for me.
There is overwhelming evidence tha this is in fact the case, and very little to the contrary. Or could I cannot and would not choose to paint a complex picture of this suffice it to say that the truth is in the consequences.
Wooh! Arestovich understands Neoliberalism very well and described how part of it dysfunctions.
Actually, it amounts to a confession and testimony to the fraudulent MICC, the last C being Congress. With Outlaw US Imperial Brass running the show, I expect the situation to worsen. Earlier at MoA I wrote about the very good possibility that the Ukie Army in its current condition would be incapable of an orderly withdrawal and could easily become a rout--the Red Badge of Courage Moment, a Skedaddle.
No, no! The last time the Z-man was in DC, he PROMISED the swamp he had a super-duper secret plan to take 3 cities back. He didn't mention which or when.
So the plan is to let the Russians take all of Ukraine, and then be given 3 cities back in a super-duper secret deal, like Lvov.
And then Z-man can retire to Florida, with a presidential security package to protect him from his outraged people - well, those who survive him, which probably won't be many anyway.
The obvious question would be will Russia strike these US generals orchestrating the killings of Russian soldiers? Or another red line ignored for fear of escalation?
Time is on Russia's (and China's and Iran's) side, no point in providing a cause celebre for the MIC. Let them go down as slowly and as quietly as possible. For the Ukies there will be a war crimes tribunal.
The USA has every intention of using the Samson option - nukes. It keeps its first strike missiles in Europe and thinks it can escape retaliation on U.S. soil.
Yeah but 25% of the population still believe that God will spare them in the apocalypse, including the Speaker of the House. The brain worm known as the Scofield Bible has buried deep into the US population.
The Russians would be wickedly stupid if they don't blast them immediately , the escalation is already there , when they are actively participating . This game of bluffing can be played in reverse . The Russians should say " what you gonna do about it , do you want to escalate it even more ? Bring it on " . Mr. SIMP is not saying anything about the Russian military leadership , but actually there are lots of unhappy personals who are sick and tired of holding back when it is not wise . This is a war , and no longer a SMO . , it has been converted to openly Russian killing enterprise . If they are openly saying that Russia is an enemy , and the best money we spend if we killing the Russians , Then what escalation there is to worry about ?
Why would they "blast" them? For all intents and purposes, replacing Ukrainian generals (who at least have some experience and very good background) with American generals (who are complete morons) will only make Russian job easier.
They are morons , but they have self awareness , they only good at sneak attacks from a safe distance and leapfrogging with just cold racist hate . this is a new game with this deployment they are asking for it . Blast them , they are not there for a just cause . Ukrainians defending they country, I got that ,they getting help, I got that . The Americans are itching to destroy the Russians , then rob them blind , not for themselves , but for the Banksters shysters narcissistic parasites .
you've misunderstood the intent; AFU have issues on the ground with commanding officers, the idea here it to push AFU commanders from the rear to the front and replace them with trained US officers. It really doesn't matter how competent the replacements are, providing the competent ones go to the front to create some form of pushback.
Allied command structures do not work that well. In particular, putting foreign commanders over native troops really doesn't work well. It's a morale issue more than anything else. Think Italians in North Africa, the various Axis nationalities in Russia, Hessians in the US, some of Napoleon's armies, Austro-Hungarian forces in WWI, the Liberator and Pompeiian armies in Rome...
I always thought of this as a weakness of the Warsaw Pact. If I were the Soviets, I wouldn't have trusted the Eastern European armies very far.
One of the Kings of Naples said something along the lines of "Dress them in blue, green or red, and they'll still run" about his own Neapolitan soldiers. The Neapolitan throne was nearly always composed of what amounted to foreigners.
Just to rub the Yanks noses in their own shite! Yankeeland doesn't have a functional military any more, all bluster and bullshit. The shitpit is drowning in debt, involved in two wars that it shouldn't be and trying to start a third.
Yankeeland is bleeding to a slow death and every little cut hurts it more. How it will stave off a catastrophic financial collapse is anyone's guess. I just hope most countries can get their gold back.
I have thought this for some time now and the only conclusion I come to is that there are more subtle machinations and broader issues to consider before going off
Plus a decent buffer zone between it and the hostile entities that have repeatedly stated they want the destruction of the Russian Federation - Nasty American Terrorist Organisation.
Given the total corruption of Zelensky and his claque, I'd be astounded if Ukraine has any actual gold reserves left. Everything is a fabrication with them -- just like it is with the Biden admin.
I have one question about your assertion that the US may attempt to inflame Europe...so what? You seem to assume that Europe has the capability to actually do something militarily in Ukraine. If so, that assumption appears to have no connection with reality. Europe, and in fact NATO, has been largely demilitarized and will likely take decades to produce replacements and build largely depleted militaries. Russia is poised to settle this conflict on the field of battle, and I don't see any options for the US and / or Europe to change the course of this conflict conventionally.
Yeah all 80,000 in the British Army (including the Gurkhas) and 25,000 in reserve. Like any army, most of them are not front line soldiers. The vehicle and munitions UK capabilities will not support the rate of fire and destruction of a modern war against an advanced opponent. The RAF has 137 out-of-date Typhoons and 31 F35s (the latter of which spend more time in the shop than any other such aircraft). The Royal Navy is simply a set of floating targets and cant even muster its own aircraft carrier group (they have to borrow ships from other navies and even borrow planes!)
Yes, they are more trained and professional but the years of austerity have produced a very shrunken British armed forces, and decade upon decade of neoliberalism has decimated the manufacturing industries required to supply them.
They have also not fought a peer competitor for many, many decades. The Ukrainians have complained about their UK training not being realistic for fighting the Russians, as against fighting the depleted third-rate Iraqis or Afghan irregulars.
Plus most Western Europeans see this shitshow for what it is. They won't fight if not directly threatened and very few believe anything their '''leaders'' say and most want out of and an end to the E.U.
"Zelensky’s purpose was to convince them Ukraine is not as corrupt as they all know it to be."
The problem with this is it is all posturing. The Western elite, including Republicans, quite enjoy the fact that there is a western country that is corrupt. They don't like dealing with Africa or Asia due to the culture shock and uncertainty. Having a corrupt western country creates so many opportunities for the western ruling elite to launder taxpayer money [of both countries] into their own pockets.
The west has spent the last 2 or 3 decades systematically dismantling their productive capacity and energy production, and moving it all offshore. Most recently this has been justified using the cult of global warming - financialisation of the economy is far better for the environment because debt has a small carbon footprint.
Even if they build the factories, the manufacturing skills are gone. The empty semiconductor factory looking for workers is testament to that.
A lot of this western analysis, both pro-Ukraine and even weirdly, pro-Russian, hinge on one glaring flaw:
- it discounts Russia completely.
What Russia plans. What Russia wants. What the movements in its politics circles, production, war stance and cultural shifts signal for this war and the world.
But for some reason everyone discusses US and pukeraine's plans and moves like they happen in complete vacuum, and that their success or failure rest only on their innate ability to execute these plans - and not an active adversary that they're brought against.
Exactly - - but this is the fact that gives their game away - by this you know the USEU are not serious in their freeze or cease fire or negotiation 'plans'
they never have they never will they never can negotiate
Because these western leaders are trapped inside their own bubble. They have put their faith in forever war and corporate control of the globe. Russia was supposed to become just another colony of the western financial system. Blackrock and the US military is still trying to make this fairy tale come true.
Pretty sure that Vlad became ruler of Wallachia now part of Romania and that is a Yankeeland vassal much to its inhabitants disgust.
Who knows perhaps some of those brand spankin new “advisers” will be at the right place at the wrong time? Stay tuned for a plane crash or two in Okinawa and Diego Garcia....
Oh fer sure they have been meddling since 1948 but more recently after Debatsevo it was pretty clear they were running things with their NATO buddies
The best part was when Zelensky met directly with MIC executives. They don't even hide the puppet strings anymore. US taxpayer money goes to Congress, which launders it through Raytheon and Zelensky. 10% for the big guy! All part of the color revolution playbook: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/how-to-execute-a-color-revolution
" .....MIC executives. They don't even hide the puppet strings anymore." here's a blast from the past. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRkCefHXlSo
wow didn't know that one. Really really eerie..
No one wants to shower with Joe anymore, it's worse than being molested by a sun-aged rubber chicken. However zElenskyi will do anything for a line of coke and another mansion.
Brutal and graphic, but i like it!!
Oh lord yeah!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LQUXuQ6Zd9w&pp=ygUId2FyIHBpZ3M%3D
The real Yuri is a grifter, never mentioned the jews when talking about subverting nations.
Nobody cares, as long as the check clears.
and the party drugs, underage boys, and youthful girls are free.
Also quite amusing how our SecDef is openly on the board of Raytheon, and heavily invested in at least 1 fund that profits from war, along with Blinken.
Not an intelligent argument.
This is an economic war, a war of economic attrition. It isn't over until the fat woman the fat woman (Yellen) sings. Ukraine will dig in and morph like a caterpillar. Can the US afford more debt for infinity?
The US today is largely a service economy, it has managed to push their debt to the lower classes who have been strategically impoverished more and more while the rich have gotten insanely richer and all covered by them running the world economy like their own private casino.
But I think they've pushed it too far with this hybrid world war against Russia and China now, people underestimate just how significant de-dollarization and economic independence Russia and the BRICS are pushing actually will be long term. Uncle Sam arrogantly over-played his hand this time, people are leaving the Casino.
" it has managed to push their debt to the lower classes who have been strategically impoverished" , it's not just confined to the USA. Whole fuck'n countries are pushed to the brink. One example of many , the 'Structural Adjustment' packages of the 80's. Fucked Mexico, flooded USA with illegal migrants to this day. Many more exapamples. Global impoverishment is a weapon of polical control for Langley folk. Prof Sami Amin Al-Arian talks about this in the vid below. Also explains why no oil weapon against Israel (hint, not the 70's any more, USA and other non Opec producers are likely to push out Saudis if they emgargo oil-'market structural adjustment'. Embargo ends, Saudis have lost and aint getting back the same share of global oil market-so NO embargo. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puEVdyUJqH4
BillyBunt -- I think that this video's conclusion "that non-Opec producers are likely to push out Saudi's if they embargo oil' is likely incorrect (or substantially exaggerated) for a couple of reasons:
1) We have to keep in mind that although we often think of 'oil & gas' as one type of energy market, natural gas and an oil are very distinct, separate markets (oil and gas have different end uses, customers, suppliers, and market dynamics). I raise this point about natural gas because although I think the video is incorrect in citing market share loss as a deterrent for an embargo on oil , I do believe that fear of 'market share' loss is a relatively decent explanation as to thy there wouldn't likely be an embargo on natural gas from the Gulf. Embargoing gas (although powerful in the short term) would lead to market share changes, oil not so much.
2) Part of the reason why a Gulf embargo on oil exports would be different (than gas and from 1973 with oil) is that there really is no such thing as one oil market -- there are many many different 'little' oil markets in the world today, because there are so many different (and basically incompatible) grades of oil. Light, sweet crude (low viscosity, low sulfur oil) is best for gasoline and light distillates -- and comes from specific areas of the world (and not others). US fracking oil for example is almost exclusively of this variety. Heavier oils (like those more typically found in the Gulf) work better for diesel fuel, lubricants, and heavier oil applications. Furthermore, the refineries that convert crude oil into refined products are almost always 'grade-specific' -- meaning you can't run US light sweet crude through a refinery used to running Saudi or Iranian oil (the refineries are tweaked and optimized for just one type of input). Changing the refinery is a long and expensive process. An embargo by one set of producers (say the Gulf states) would cause massive supply shocks and price changes in the world. In the medium term, producers of roughly similar types of oil might be able to expand production (if they are not at capacity at the moment). Sources of substitute oil might include Russia or Venezuela -- however even these types of oil (that is in some ways 'similar' to Saudi oil) may not work in the refineries optimized for Saudi crude -- for example, Venezuelan oil is very very heavy and high in sulfur content, which needs specialized processing). So, not all oil is 'equal'.
3) Aside from economic 'substitution' problems, you also have the problem of 'spare capacity' --- could Nigeria or Angola or US Shale producers actually be able to produce more oil than they are producing today to make up for a Saudi embargo? This 'surge' in production is somewhat doubtful, especially in the short term. In the last several decades, African producers used to consistently exceed their production quotas (and in essence cheat their own oil cartel, because the nations behind this oil production really 'needed the money'). However, in the last decade, these nation states have consistently under-produced their quotas. Why? Big factors behind the inability to pump more is a) waste and corruption (a significant amount of Nigerian production is 'lost' in transit from well-head to tanker and used rather wastefully domestically and not therefore available for export) and b) lack of investment in new wells, pipelines, and staff to get the oils out of the ground and to market (all this ESG talk in finance has been resulting in substantial cut-backs in worldwide oil & gas exploration and exploitation investment). Something similar is true with US Shale oil -- investments in new 'pads' has been very very disciplined (The original oil lease holders on these shale wells invested in wells and pumped like crazy but ended up losing a great deal of money when oil prices crashed. The new owners of these shale wells who 'took over' the management of these companies or bought out the leases during the original owners bankruptcies have been much more disciplines with regard to 'return on investment'. Pumping above your long term capacity and investment plan is not usually a good financial idea, even for short term gain -- plus Shale oil is 'rapidly depleting - i.e. gone in a few short years -- and new 'good, promising' shale leases are in diminishing supply) -- so that too is a powerful disincentive for 'pumping more' oil just to 'gain share'.
4) There are also international and domestic reasons for the Gulf to not cut back on oil exports. Internationally, the loss of Gulf oil via embargo (if broadly applied) would affect 'neutral' players (like China) that are in fact 'friendly' to the Gulf states. This might be counter-productive to what the Gulf states are trying to achieve. Even a narrow embargo (that applied only to the West and Israel) would still result in price spikes in the sought after global commodities that would dramatically increase cost for China and others in the near and medium term (shielding China and the Global South was not nearly the priority it is today back in 1973). This knock-on effect may work against the foreign policy interests of those creating the boycott.
5) Internally, say within the Gulf States, there is also a huge problem with boycotts because no oil production means no welfare payments internally. In 1973, the Gulf States had no where near the standard of living that residents there enjoy today (urbanization, widespread electrification and air-conditioning, very high levels of private automobile ownership, etc). In 1973, the Gulf states had not yet to build the extensive and very expensive social welfare and subsidization efforts that they have today. Saudi Arabia in particular would have trouble cutting oil production because that loss of revenue directly affects internal stability, high debt load, and economic development & defense efforts.
6) There are 'second' and 'third' order effects to also consider. Shutting down production will raise prices in the short term (since oil supply curves are pretty inflexible and demand curves are steep and inflexible as well). Higher prices may lead to 'new entrants' or 'increased production' by some oil producers in the intermediate or long term, but in the short term these higher prices will almost certainly push the global economy into recession. A global recession, because of oil shortages, may then 'over-correct' (due to 'demand destruction').and thus lead to a collapse of oil prices (such things have happened in the past). In the meantime, all kinds of global chaos happens which might lead to more wars or financial or economic collapse (and risk the assets that Gulf and others have invested their 'savings' into).
7) Finally, an effort to 'shut in' oil production in the near and medium term can and often does permanently damage the oil well itself - potentially forever diminishing the amount of oil you get out of a drilled well. Getting the oil out of the ground is a lot more complex than sticking a straw into a pressure filled balloon and just turning on and off the spigot. Stopping or scaling back the outflow of a drilled well, once it is being tapped, can lead to all kinds of complicated back-pressure and geologic 'collapses' that make re-drilling the well all over again necessary if you want to restart production. Sometimes, in some wells and geographies this isn't so hard to do -- in others, stopping outflow means that the well is 'done' (regardless of how much more oil that specific well could have produced if kept open). And given the quantities of physical oil we are talking about, storage in tanks or tankers is not really an option either.
Putting all this together, I am not saying that an oil (or gas) embargo is out of the question -- I am just saying that it's just not an easy or inexpensive geopolitical tool to use. It's costly and indiscriminate in its effect and that it is these factors, not fear of market share loss, that likely dominates Gulf oil decision making. That said, if the price to doing nothing (and letting the Palestinian tragedy continue) is too high, well then, things like embargo can happen. However, to dismiss an embargo because of 'market share concerns' is way too simplistic.
Thank you for this detailed analysis, Martin. It does seem that redirecting flows of oil from Saudi Arabia, Russia and Iran could have a big effect, since all refineries and markets are operating so efficiently, and without any production-chain slack these days. "Disruption" of supplies to Israel and "allied" countries could increase prices and make supply less consistent, as has happened to Europe recently, by its own design.
You bet. "Big effect" would definitely be an understatement. The US (in aggregate) produces almost enough oil for its own consumption (but not the right mix of oil between light and heavy, etc) --- so right now the US is actually still importing Russia heavier oil (to use in its refineries) while it simultaneously exports surplus lighter oil worldwide. Curtailing or redirecting or substantially restricting (or repricing) oil flows from Russia, Saudi Arabia (and the other Gulf States) and Iran would absolutely crush the world economy and might precipitate a financial market collapse in the West. The effect of such a closure or re-direction might even be considered a casus belli, maybe even prompting attempts to 'seize' the oil in extremis (remember the US has run down its Strategic Petroleum Reserve to the lowest level since it was created in the late 1970's). Would a war automatically be the result of an embargo -- no. Could it escalate into one -- yes. Could that local war escalate into a global conflict across the superpowers - yes. And this is just me reacting to the effects of such an embargo on the US -- Europe would be road-kill right from the very beginning (no substantial strategic reserves, little to no home-grown supply, no alternative sources of supply). This is probably another set of reasons on why an embargo is so problematic --- using it could be 'nuclear in effect' on the West (and might therefore even invite a similarly powerful but 'less in effect' kind of response from the West, if you know what I mean). It could go wrong for everybody very quickly if the players involved are not careful and lucky.
John Helmer presents evidence that Israel/US have already been using very low yield neutron bombs on civilians:
https://johnhelmer.net/new-evidence-that-israel-is-using-a-new-uranium-weapon-make-that-the-neutron-bomb/#more-89018
An inevitable deduction from the consistent findings of enriched Uranium in samples from Gaza, Lebanon and Iraq, is that a neutron weapon of some kind has been employed since the second Gulf War, and possible before then. This is an Israeli (and US) secret weapon, as was reported by Robert Fisk in The Independent in 2006 [7]. The increases in congenital effects seen in the Fallujah population [8,9,10] and also in Gaza [20,21] can plausibly have resulted from exposure to neutrons as well as to the Uranium particulate aerosols. The weapon is ideal for armies employed in methodological destruction both of fighters hidden in urban environments (where neutrons pass through walls) and for any state which has the aim of destroying the civilian population using a genetic mutation weapon (cancer, fertility loss, birth defects). It is, however, a nuclear weapon, and those deploying it are using a nuclear weapon against civilian populations as part of a project to destroy an enemy state population without acknowledging this. This is a war crime.
P.S. now that Kissinger has past, an 'anecdote' from the 1973-1974 oil embargo recently emerged (via Jim Rickard). According to Jim, he was part of a White House / State Department planning session on how to respond to the embargo that resulting from the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. Item #1 on the agenda was how to best seize the Saudi oil fields and depose the Gulf monarchies. Rickard credits Kissinger with the insight that it might be best to first 'co-opt' the Saudis (via the Petro-dollar alliance) rather than move directly to military action. In hindsight, the Petro-dollar initiative was success (and hence war avoided) -- but apparently war was much closer than commonly assumed.
China is by far the largest energy consumer. ThecEU is a declining energy user. The USA has been stagnate for 25 years. All that has to happen to break the past dynamic is for another large energy user to come online. Everything is shifting East. BRICS will be the death of Western imperialism. The Saudi will move East too. India is ramping up. When they surpass the USA and EU the world will look a whole lot different.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/primary-energy-cons?tab=chart&time=1975..latest&country=CHN~OWID_EUR~USA~IND
wow! what a reply. Yes I agree , no simple one dimensional answers. I'm sure there are many vectors in the decision making process.
In the immortalized words of Kissinger.....”Make the economy scream”
this is starting to penetrate MSM think'n: https://www.smh.com.au/business/markets/the-164-billion-question-markets-set-be-tested-by-a-flood-of-debt-20231211-p5eqhi.html
Not just the US, but most if not all of the western developed countries are now service economies, all paid for with debt attached to property.
Which is a good time to mention that the whole world got an extra 19 trillion dollars about a year ago or so, under the cover of "COVID stimulus". The point of that had very little to do with COVID, it was was so central banks could raise interest rates above zero again and heal the debt economy that was in dire trouble since 2008, mortal danger since 2015, and literally collapsing in 2019.
Until that money was added there was no way they could have ever raised interest rates above zero again without collapsing everything.
And like magic, interest rates have risen at the fastest rate in history and everything is mostly ok, thanks to the extra 19 trillion dollars inflating the debt away.
The 'magic' is likely only temporary --- not everyone is so optimistic that 'things are fine'. So I agree with you but would go one step further and suggest that the 'collapse' has been deferred (and made worse) not avoided.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not optimistic at all. I was just pointing out that over the last couple of decades the west has transformed itself from a productive powerhouse into an economic veneer, painted on top of the banks.
And it was all coming apart.
If nothing else we do need to respect the ruling elite's opportunism: the trouble between Ukraine and Russia, in my opinion, gave them an opportunity to try and grab at Russia's energy reserves, and the accidental release of a bioweapon, in my opinion, gave them the opportunity to bandage up the global economy.
I'm old enough to remember when a million was a lot of money, even in dollars, then it was billions now trillions. How Weimar.
I would add, that many Western countries have a bloated public sector aka state employees with parasitic private companies attached to it. Germany has a brutal tax weight for the average single citizen, up to 80% all in all, some other Western countries are also going in that route. So if you push that further, you will get societal disruptions and other non-aligned politicians. I can't fathom how bad that will get, when commodities like oil, gas, food stuff get more expensive every year, that will be the end of the West, because Russia and China have far less tax weight for their average citizens it seems. So they can up the ante anytime, the West, not so much.
when you say economic war what I think you really mean is class war-the rich against all.
" “There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” NYT, 2006.
According to MMT we can afford debt for infinity. I can't wait to go to the store to spend my first US hundred trillion dollar note on a pack of gum and find out I am short.
If they are bribing you with dollars better exchange that quickly.
They're selling post cards of the hanging
They're painting the passports brown
The beauty parlors are filled with sailors
The circus is in town.
Here comes the blind commissioner
They've got him in a trance
One hand is tied to the tight rope walker
The other is in his pants
And the riot squad they're restless
They need somewhere to go
As lady and I look out tonight on
Desolation Row.
THIS❤️🐈⬛Old lady with a virtual kat.
Nice poem, sums up today well. Original?
Bob Dylan, 1965 on the Highway 61 Revisited album
Bob Dylan, Desolation Row https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUvcWXTIjcU
Incredibly prophetic song written ±60 years ago.
At midnight all the agents
And the superhuman crew
Come out and round up everyone
That knows more than they do
Then they bring them to the factory
Where the heart attack machine
Is strapped across their shoulders
And then the kerosene
Is brought down from the castles
By insurance men who go
Check to see that nobody is escaping
To Desolation Row
My Chemical Romance covered this song in a Punk style. Interesting take vs Dylan’s version.
More violent.
Elenskies is riding on the freeway of love in his pink Cadillac heading off the high road steaming off the high cliffs and he be fittin to crash onto the blackRock cliffs and shatter his comedy routine
I just can't wait to see all the accountability for the US money spent in Ukraine, I'm sure every dime was well allocated.
There will be no accountability, just like Afghanistan or Iraq or any of the United States' other imperial adventures
As an American, I can tell you the Republicans will do absolutely anything the deep state tells them to do.
So if they're playing hardball with Zelensky, it's a sign the US govt is shifting its priorities.
We all know that people in Congress don't make any serious decisions.
As Kennedy once said, winning has many fathers, loss is an orphan...No one wants to be on record sending large amounts of money to a sure loser, with elections coming up....
Nobody also wants to be blamed for "losing" when a measly few hundred billion more and Victory Is Ours!
Team R wants Ukraine to collapse close to the election, and doesn't want to be blamed.
The saying goes all the way back to Tacitus, just to add up.
My Spidey senses went on high alert when none of the usual cuckservatives in the Senate (Romney, Collins, Eye-patch McCain, etc.) back stabbed us. There is always a couple to thwart whatever would benefit us so this was a goose bumps moment for me.
There is overwhelming evidence tha this is in fact the case, and very little to the contrary. Or could I cannot and would not choose to paint a complex picture of this suffice it to say that the truth is in the consequences.
Good info I’m just not sure there was a clear point to it.
If there was, what is it?
Wooh! Arestovich understands Neoliberalism very well and described how part of it dysfunctions.
Actually, it amounts to a confession and testimony to the fraudulent MICC, the last C being Congress. With Outlaw US Imperial Brass running the show, I expect the situation to worsen. Earlier at MoA I wrote about the very good possibility that the Ukie Army in its current condition would be incapable of an orderly withdrawal and could easily become a rout--the Red Badge of Courage Moment, a Skedaddle.
Popcorn is key❤️🐈⬛
Nah, teeth don't like that anymore, prefer ritz and peanut butter sandwich snacks instead.
Ditto; nibbles and naps, carry on we must❤️🐈⬛, until…we…don’t.🐈⬛❤️
Do not forget the Larger and the wine.
No, no! The last time the Z-man was in DC, he PROMISED the swamp he had a super-duper secret plan to take 3 cities back. He didn't mention which or when.
So the plan is to let the Russians take all of Ukraine, and then be given 3 cities back in a super-duper secret deal, like Lvov.
And then Z-man can retire to Florida, with a presidential security package to protect him from his outraged people - well, those who survive him, which probably won't be many anyway.
The obvious question would be will Russia strike these US generals orchestrating the killings of Russian soldiers? Or another red line ignored for fear of escalation?
Time is on Russia's (and China's and Iran's) side, no point in providing a cause celebre for the MIC. Let them go down as slowly and as quietly as possible. For the Ukies there will be a war crimes tribunal.
Dream on . The Russians have been put on notice , we are spending our money to kill you .
LMFAO delusional boy.
To be fair, that's been happening since before February, 2022.
To further that sense of “fairness” I’ll bet Russia has a thought that since well before the turn of the century.
The USA has every intention of using the Samson option - nukes. It keeps its first strike missiles in Europe and thinks it can escape retaliation on U.S. soil.
No, we don't believe that we can escape retaliation. At least no one with a brain, and despite the appearances, there are lots in the chain who do.
Yeah but 25% of the population still believe that God will spare them in the apocalypse, including the Speaker of the House. The brain worm known as the Scofield Bible has buried deep into the US population.
When will we see the USA prosecuted in the international criminal court alongside them?
The Russians would be wickedly stupid if they don't blast them immediately , the escalation is already there , when they are actively participating . This game of bluffing can be played in reverse . The Russians should say " what you gonna do about it , do you want to escalate it even more ? Bring it on " . Mr. SIMP is not saying anything about the Russian military leadership , but actually there are lots of unhappy personals who are sick and tired of holding back when it is not wise . This is a war , and no longer a SMO . , it has been converted to openly Russian killing enterprise . If they are openly saying that Russia is an enemy , and the best money we spend if we killing the Russians , Then what escalation there is to worry about ?
Why would they "blast" them? For all intents and purposes, replacing Ukrainian generals (who at least have some experience and very good background) with American generals (who are complete morons) will only make Russian job easier.
They are morons , but they have self awareness , they only good at sneak attacks from a safe distance and leapfrogging with just cold racist hate . this is a new game with this deployment they are asking for it . Blast them , they are not there for a just cause . Ukrainians defending they country, I got that ,they getting help, I got that . The Americans are itching to destroy the Russians , then rob them blind , not for themselves , but for the Banksters shysters narcissistic parasites .
you've misunderstood the intent; AFU have issues on the ground with commanding officers, the idea here it to push AFU commanders from the rear to the front and replace them with trained US officers. It really doesn't matter how competent the replacements are, providing the competent ones go to the front to create some form of pushback.
That is exactly , how the war in Vietnam started.
You should understand thinks for your own first , than doubt others .
Or maybe it simply pushes those competent ones further from decision making? That makes everything worse.
What they should do instead? They should send these US officers to the frontline, to let them prove themselves.
Although we know very well how would that turn out.
Allied command structures do not work that well. In particular, putting foreign commanders over native troops really doesn't work well. It's a morale issue more than anything else. Think Italians in North Africa, the various Axis nationalities in Russia, Hessians in the US, some of Napoleon's armies, Austro-Hungarian forces in WWI, the Liberator and Pompeiian armies in Rome...
I always thought of this as a weakness of the Warsaw Pact. If I were the Soviets, I wouldn't have trusted the Eastern European armies very far.
One of the Kings of Naples said something along the lines of "Dress them in blue, green or red, and they'll still run" about his own Neapolitan soldiers. The Neapolitan throne was nearly always composed of what amounted to foreigners.
Just to rub the Yanks noses in their own shite! Yankeeland doesn't have a functional military any more, all bluster and bullshit. The shitpit is drowning in debt, involved in two wars that it shouldn't be and trying to start a third.
Yankeeland is bleeding to a slow death and every little cut hurts it more. How it will stave off a catastrophic financial collapse is anyone's guess. I just hope most countries can get their gold back.
I have thought this for some time now and the only conclusion I come to is that there are more subtle machinations and broader issues to consider before going off
Putin, like your own ‘leaders’, has oligarchs to deal with and they don’t want what Putin and Russia want.
First thing that came to mind when I read about that.
IF I were a gamblin man, rather than simply a rambling one I’d stake all my duckettes on a big red YES, they will target them with extreme prejudice.
They already blew up a bunch of generals last year with Kinzhal
They are just another foreign mercenaries in ukraine. Russia has already eliminated some us citizens, how those generals are different from those?
"the Pentagon is transferring its own generals to Ukraine to takeover the direct management of the war front: "
Surely this changes the self imposed rules Russia has so far followed?
"Ukraine may have to bunker down and defend only the most important cities, while giving up large amounts of non-strategic territory."
They still don't get it, Russia doesn't want territory it wants deNAZification of Jukraine, and the destruction of Ukie military.
Plus a decent buffer zone between it and the hostile entities that have repeatedly stated they want the destruction of the Russian Federation - Nasty American Terrorist Organisation.
The west can’t afford to get it.
Given the total corruption of Zelensky and his claque, I'd be astounded if Ukraine has any actual gold reserves left. Everything is a fabrication with them -- just like it is with the Biden admin.
I have one question about your assertion that the US may attempt to inflame Europe...so what? You seem to assume that Europe has the capability to actually do something militarily in Ukraine. If so, that assumption appears to have no connection with reality. Europe, and in fact NATO, has been largely demilitarized and will likely take decades to produce replacements and build largely depleted militaries. Russia is poised to settle this conflict on the field of battle, and I don't see any options for the US and / or Europe to change the course of this conflict conventionally.
Euro soy boys against battle-hardened Russians would not last very long before the Europeans white flag it.
Those Europeans would include the British armed forces, far more well trained and professional than the U.S. military.
Yeah all 80,000 in the British Army (including the Gurkhas) and 25,000 in reserve. Like any army, most of them are not front line soldiers. The vehicle and munitions UK capabilities will not support the rate of fire and destruction of a modern war against an advanced opponent. The RAF has 137 out-of-date Typhoons and 31 F35s (the latter of which spend more time in the shop than any other such aircraft). The Royal Navy is simply a set of floating targets and cant even muster its own aircraft carrier group (they have to borrow ships from other navies and even borrow planes!)
Yes, they are more trained and professional but the years of austerity have produced a very shrunken British armed forces, and decade upon decade of neoliberalism has decimated the manufacturing industries required to supply them.
They have also not fought a peer competitor for many, many decades. The Ukrainians have complained about their UK training not being realistic for fighting the Russians, as against fighting the depleted third-rate Iraqis or Afghan irregulars.
Plus most Western Europeans see this shitshow for what it is. They won't fight if not directly threatened and very few believe anything their '''leaders'' say and most want out of and an end to the E.U.
Even if 'directly threatened' by Russia (or China) I'd consider it being liberated from an inherently evil and tyrannical regime called 'the West'.
Europeans like being slaves.
"Zelensky’s purpose was to convince them Ukraine is not as corrupt as they all know it to be."
The problem with this is it is all posturing. The Western elite, including Republicans, quite enjoy the fact that there is a western country that is corrupt. They don't like dealing with Africa or Asia due to the culture shock and uncertainty. Having a corrupt western country creates so many opportunities for the western ruling elite to launder taxpayer money [of both countries] into their own pockets.
The west has spent the last 2 or 3 decades systematically dismantling their productive capacity and energy production, and moving it all offshore. Most recently this has been justified using the cult of global warming - financialisation of the economy is far better for the environment because debt has a small carbon footprint.
Even if they build the factories, the manufacturing skills are gone. The empty semiconductor factory looking for workers is testament to that.
Yankeeland set and continues to set new standards for levels of corruption. The grift is everywhere.
Even small tradesmen like plumbers or electricians are in their late 50s/60s and about to retire.
Bingo. This is one reason we saw south American countries start improving before rapidly collapsing back into corruption riddled places.
A lot of this western analysis, both pro-Ukraine and even weirdly, pro-Russian, hinge on one glaring flaw:
- it discounts Russia completely.
What Russia plans. What Russia wants. What the movements in its politics circles, production, war stance and cultural shifts signal for this war and the world.
But for some reason everyone discusses US and pukeraine's plans and moves like they happen in complete vacuum, and that their success or failure rest only on their innate ability to execute these plans - and not an active adversary that they're brought against.
I don't get it.
You and me both.
Exactly - - but this is the fact that gives their game away - by this you know the USEU are not serious in their freeze or cease fire or negotiation 'plans'
they never have they never will they never can negotiate
Because these western leaders are trapped inside their own bubble. They have put their faith in forever war and corporate control of the globe. Russia was supposed to become just another colony of the western financial system. Blackrock and the US military is still trying to make this fairy tale come true.