Ukrainian victory over Russia is inevitable
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Are you new to the US? Have you been under a rock for the last 20 years? |
Anonymous
Russia's economy is like that Al Capone vault that Geraldo opened on live TV. |
Anonymous
LOL typical of your Russian colonizer thinking, everything as resource extraction. Hate to break it to you but there's now technologies being developed to cost-effectively extract virtually limitless amounts of lithium from seawater. Though, there's also better battery technologies also being worked on, that aren't even lithium-based. |
Anonymous
Prigo was paying trolls 40,000-80,000 (with overtime) rubles a month at his three farms in St. Petersburg, what's the going rate now? |
Anonymous
Oh you dear sweet summer child: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/20/iraq-war-oil-resources-energy-peak-scarcity-economy "The real issue is candidly described in a 2001 report on "energy security" - commissioned by then US Vice-President Dick Cheney - published by the Council on Foreign Relations and the James Baker Institute for Public Policy. It warned of an impending global energy crisis that would increase "US and global vulnerability to disruption", and leave the US facing "unprecedented energy price volatility." The main source of disruption, the report observed, is "Middle East tension", in particular, the threat posed by Iraq. Critically, the documented illustrated that US officials had lost all faith in Saddam due his erratic and unpredictable energy export policies. In 2000, Iraq had "effectively become a swing producer, turning its taps on and off when it has felt such action was in its strategic interest to do so." There is a "possibility that Saddam Hussein may remove Iraqi oil from the market for an extended period of time" in order to damage prices.. The Iraq War was only partly, however, about big profits for Anglo-American oil conglomerates - that would be a bonus (one which in the end has failed to materialise to the degree hoped for - not for want of trying though). The real goal - as Greg Muttitt documented in his book Fuel on the Fire citing declassified Foreign Office files from 2003 onwards - was stabilising global energy supplies as a whole by ensuring the free flow of Iraqi oil to world markets - benefits to US and UK companies constituted an important but secondary goal.. To this end, as Whitehall documents obtained by the Independent show, the US and British sought to privatise Iraqi oil production with a view to allow foreign companies to takeover. Minutes of a meeting held on 12 May 2003 said: "The future shape of the Iraqi industry will affect oil markets, and the functioning of Opec, in both of which we have a vital interest." A "desirable" outcome for Iraqi's crippled oil industry, officials concluded, is: "... an oil sector open and attractive to foreign investment, with appropriate arrangements for the exploitation of new fields." The documents added that "foreign companies' involvement seems to be the only possible solution" to make Iraq a reliable oil exporter. This, however, would be "politically sensitive", and would "require careful handling to avoid the impression that we are trying to push the Iraqis down one particular path." https://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz/index.html Yes, the Iraq War was a war for oil, and it was a war with winners: Big Oil. It has been 10 years since Operation Iraqi Freedom’s bombs first landed in Baghdad. And while most of the U.S.-led coalition forces have long since gone, Western oil companies are only getting started. Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq’s domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms. ..Oil was not the only goal of the Iraq War, but it was certainly the central one, as top U.S. military and political figures have attested to in the years following the invasion. “Of course it’s about oil; we can’t really deny that,” said Gen. John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir, “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.” Then-Sen. and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: “People say we’re not fighting for oil. Of course we are.” For the first time in about 30 years, Western oil companies are exploring for and producing oil in Iraq from some of the world’s largest oil fields and reaping enormous profit. And while the U.S. has also maintained a fairly consistent level of Iraq oil imports since the invasion, the benefits are not finding their way through Iraq’s economy or society. These outcomes were by design, the result of a decade of U.S. government and oil company pressure. In 1998, Kenneth Derr, then CEO of Chevron, said, “Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas-reserves I’d love Chevron to have access to.” Today it does. ..Planning for a military invasion was soon under way. Bush’s first Treasury secretary, Paul O’Neill, said in 2004, “Already by February (2001), the talk was mostly about logistics. Not the why (to invade Iraq), but the how and how quickly.” In its final report in May 2001 (PDF), the task force argued that Middle Eastern countries should be urged “to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment.” This is precisely what has been achieved in Iraq. Here’s how they did it. The State Department Future of Iraq Project’s Oil and Energy Working Group met from February 2002 to April 2003 and agreed that Iraq “should be opened to international oil companies as quickly as possible after the war.” Arwa Damon: Iraq suffocates in cloak of sorrow The list of the group’s members was not made public, but Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum – who was appointed Iraq’s oil minister by the U.S. occupation government in September 2003 – was part of the group, according to Greg Muttitt, a journalist and author of “Fuel on the Fire: Oil and Politics in Occupied Iraq.” Bahr al-Uloum promptly set about trying to implement the group’s objectives. At the same time, representatives from ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Halliburton, among others, met with Cheney’s staff in January 2003 to discuss plans for Iraq’s postwar industry. For the next decade, former and current executives of western oil companies acted first as administrators of Iraq’s oil ministry and then as “advisers” to the Iraqi government. Before the invasion, there were just two things standing in the way of Western oil companies operating in Iraq: Saddam Hussein and the nation’s legal system. The invasion dealt handily with Hussein. To address the latter problem, some both inside and outside of the Bush administration argued that it should simply change Iraq’s oil laws through the U.S.-led coalition government of Iraq, which ran the country from April 2003 to June 2004. Instead the White House waited, choosing to pressure the newly elected Iraqi government to pass new oil legislation itself. |
Anonymous
| What a just read was, "blah, blah, bah.. blah-blah.. blah." |
Anonymous
My invasions are not like your invasions! My invasions are not AT ALL about resource extraction! |
Anonymous
Please explain how America's sins in Iraq have affected your travel, your finances, and your foreign holdings. How did collective responsibility affect you specifically? |
Anonymous
Agree with the PP, blah blah blah oil war blah blah evil US blah blah. Meanwhile that hydrocarbon law still hasn't ever been changed, and some of the biggest oil companies in Iraq are the greedy, evil oil-stealing US hogging it all for itself - oh no wait for some reason I see CNPC and CNOOC (China) Shell (Netherlands) Petronas (Malaysia) Lukoil and Gazprom (Russia) ENI (Italy) KOGAS (Korea) TPAO (Turkey) and a whole host of other international companies all having a stake in the Iraq oil industry. The America-haters are just flailing and grasping at straws here. |
Anonymous
Well that's a plot twist. Are you trying to tell us that you are personally named on a list of sanctioned Russians? |
Anonymous
There will be a lot of trading partners when you have Europe, USA, World Bank, and IMF refusing to let Africa and Asia build more coal plants. Europe used to be producing more oil and natural gas. These countries will go to the side that is selling them gas and coal, and the ones who will finance the plants that use these. |
Anonymous
Please do tell how Russia's invasion of Ukraine has affected your travel, your finances, and your foreign holdings. How did collective responsibility affect you specifically? |
Anonymous
Why would Africa cling to and beholden to antiquated technologies and foreign imported coal and gas when Africa some of the world's biggest and best potential for wind and solar generation for energy independence? |
Anonymous
LOL all these quoted America-haters confirming what you're denying: “Of course it’s about oil; we can’t really deny that,” said Gen. John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir, “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.” Then-Sen. and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: “People say we’re not fighting for oil. Of course we are.” But I forget: my resource extraction is very excellent and moral. Not at all like your resource extraction. |
Anonymous
I don't live in Russia so it hasn't, but my family does and it has affected them. |