Printable View
The same stolen white tractor trailer that long hauled the Buk SAM11 out of the Ukraine into Russia after downing MH17 is back again from Russia headed towards Donetsk with a T80 on the long haul trailer.
Man he is racking up the per diem and mileage these days---there must be even a night time hauling fee that he also gets as it rumored he is making the nightly runs quite often these days.
https://twitter.com/tombreadley/stat...876224/photo/1
Actually everbody was overproducing, of all types of crude: the various indices moved together and rarely deviated from each other by more than a very small percentage. The glut was in no way a phenomenon specific to any given type of crude.Quote:
Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09
Because they didn't trust each other. For all intents and purposes, the cartel ceased to function as a cartel, and become every producer for himself. At any given price point, pumping more earns you more. Of course you can push the price up if everybody cooperates... but they didn't cooperate. Of course by the 80s non-OPEC production was a majority of global production anyway, which cut into OPEC influence even more.Quote:
Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09
Again, not correct: the glut extended across the entire spectrum of crude types.Quote:
Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09
Of course if you put oil on the market, the price will drop, unless somebody somewhere cuts back production to compensate. Of course the ability of the US to sustain those sales is limited, and everybody knows that releases from reserves will have to be replaced, creating excess demand that will drive prices back up.Quote:
Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09
You need to stop assuming that everything that happens is the result of intentional planning.Quote:
Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09
This is a good general briefing on what went on:
http://www.e-ir.info/2012/12/28/worl...es-and-crises/
These are key paragraphs:
It's all worth reading, though. Again, I don't think there's a single serious oil market analyst on the planet who buys your premise. Do you know of any?Quote:
One of the major factors causing overabundance of world oil was OPECs inability to limit its production sufficiently to support a given price level. Between 1979 and 1982, demand for OPEC oil dropped by 40 percent, consequently all members decreased production by at least 20 percent. Nearly all OPEC members bore the brunt of limiting production, although certain members made larger cuts: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Libya reducing output by 65 percent, 60 percent, and 50 percent respectively. Yet even with this drop in output, prices continued to fall. This put pressure on producers to make up for falling revenues by increasing their output.
Eventually, towards the end of 1985, Saudi Arabia announced that in riposte to other OPEC members’ repeated violations of their respective production quotas, it would no longer play the role of ‘swing producer’ and would instead attempt to increase its share of world oil by selling oil at whatever prices the market would bear. As OPEC abandoned all production and pricing agreements, OPEC output rose by 25 percent, between 1985 and 1986.[8] (Gately 1986: 241-242) Of course, this only added to the world oil glut, causing oil prices to fall below $10 a barrel, which in real terms is lower than the $3 per barrel price that prevailed before the 1973 price shock. (Georgiou 1987: 298)
EIA has a similar take:
http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/petro...2000.htm#T_10_
Given this statement:
Why do you insist on pursuing strategies that will lead to Russia opting for further escalation instead of de-escalation? If "Russia cannot under Putin suffer a military defeat", do you think it's wise to force the issue? What are the consequences for European and international security if this Russian red-line is crossed? Since you argue that Russia is a second-rate, rogue, criminal, irrational nuclear state with a reckless nuclear strategy, why do you keep expecting rational behavior to be the result of your proposals? Or have you not thought that far ahead yet?Quote:
Originally Posted by outlaw
And you think Russia is acting "rational". Come on AP.Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanPride
http://en.inforesist.org/nsdc-shelli...es-into-ruins/
So AP Russia is again what acting "rational"?
Read the entire Ukrainian field reporting.
http://euromaidanpress.com/2014/08/1...gust-9-2014-2/
So AP Russia is acting rational in claiming the IRC has together with Russia organized a humanitarian convoy--when the IRC was asked in Kiev---they had heard no plan had been approved by the IRC nor did they know of any plan for a Russian aid convoy.
AP ---does this sound like a "rational clear thinking Putin ie Russia"?
Remember what was said over on the Iraq thread---you look only at the big picture but fail to see the moving pieces---not good.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0GA0C620140811
Again AP work your way through the tweet traffic and you will notice a comment that Russian military vehicles that where green yesterday and now being painted white for a "humanitarian" operation"---also the comments if the Ukraine threatens to stop the Russia aid PR attempt that has not been cleared and or planned together with the IRC that Putin "claimed today they were planning together with" then the Russians will have their excuse to use military force to delivery the "humanitarian assistance".
So again AP you are being asked---is this the "rational" Russia that you claim is needed to be understood by the West so you can negotiate with it over exactly what AP?
https://twitter.com/hashtag/Russia?src=hash
And again AP--does this sound like a Russia wanting to work within the international norm or outside the norm? Why the urgency to get an aid convoy over the border when all other parties stat there is no IRC combined Russian IRC plan---sound rational to you AP?
http://en.ria.ru/russia/20140811/191...d-to-East.html
Good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayuhan
The question that should be asked is why didn't the US make this persuasive call back when Russia first invaded Crimea?
AP---here is an excellent example of what I have been calling Putin's/Russian altered state of reality.
It is amazingly dangerous when leaders of a country who are driving an information war start to believe their own propaganda--that is what I would all an altered state of reality.
Then couple that with the concept of cognitive dissonance and you have now an "irrational" country and AP all the negotiations in the world will not bring them out of that altered state of reality.
There have been countless false flag shelling of the last two towns controlled by the mercenaries in order to give Putin cover for his "humanitarian aid". They claim there is no food and water--and yet photos in social media depicts something other than no food and water.
AP really read the near hysteria of the Russian FM concerning the "humanitarian disaster" he is claiming exists. Look at his accusations against the position of the West--near hysteria--not good for a nuclear power in an altered state of reality.
So AP just how does one negotiate with an altered state of reality called Putin?
http://www.interfax.com/newsinf.asp?pg=2&id=527696
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayuhan
Putin could drive a tank corps through the holes in your logic. On the one hand, you claim that Russia is a criminal, rogue, irrational state (armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons) and hell-bent on building a New Russia - and then on the other, you claim that escalation economic sanctions leading to the fiscal ruin of Russia will produce rational, favorable outcomes in Russian behavior.Quote:
Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09
Feel free to close that gap at any time.
Three threads are closed to enable people to cool down and to enable a review. This one thread. I will endeavour to open the thread tomorrow.
I have deleted three posts and edited slightly four posts.
SWC has clearly set terms of reference and rules of engagement, which are all set out at:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/faq.php
SWC respects the right of members to post using psuedonyms. members are not required to provide an introduction on joining, nor are 'credentials' required. We are a "broad church" of experience, interests and standpoints. We are not a political board, although politics is ever present.
On a number of issues, in the past and today, members engagement changes and lurches into sniping or personal attacks. Members often contact a Moderator when concerned, a few post their dismay. It maybe appopriate for a Moderator to then take action.
SWC is open for non-members (with a few exceptions) to read and has an excellent reputation for its content. Sometimes the wrong word(s) can damage SWC.
Within this blog are a number of interesting items, in particular - from my "armchair" - is the reported movement into Belarus of Russian troops to a position north of Kiev:http://www.interpretermag.com/ukrain...v-border/#3748
Ukraine said they wanted it coming through on a border they controlled for this 'humanitarian aid' shipment Russia has been talking about. So much bad information surrounding it on who's supposedly in control, where it's going, and yadda yadda.
Wonder if this is it, and if it is just an aide convoy. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be just food, medicine and the like. It would still be a public relations boost for Russia. Getting to play it up as hey, look we told the truth, helped these russians in the east, and of course plaster more real pictures of the conditions there.
Especially if it lets him start trying to send more... because the more he gets to send i have to wonder the next time how much of it would be kosher? It gives them the opportunity such things and I think the Ukrainians finally allowed one to come in because if they didn't it gave Russia more of an excuse to take a peacekeeping initiative.
As per my comment in another thread if this "comment" was so persuasive then why wasn't it used when Russia invaded the Crimea?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09
Your second sentence is the weakest element of SWC.
Secondly I doubt if anyone is against the rules of engagement around here but it is the abysmal quality of the moderation with repeated examples of bias that degrades SWC.
As to posts that you see fit to edit. It should be the norm for the 'editor' to idicate that the post has been edited and why. This Soviet style censorship in unacceptable IMHO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidbfpo
JMA
Out of respect for allowing discourse where commenters could and should criticize or support other's ideas the mods (myself included) have been reluctant to crackdown on individuals. However, over the past two or more months SWJ discussions have too often degenerated into little more than personal attacks with no substance.
As a mode I'm going to start deleting posts that are little more than personal attacks. Explanation will be that is a personal attack and it isn't authorized, regardless of who posts it.
I will also delete posts that challenges to others experiences, such as how many languages you speak, or have you lived overseas, or do you have combat experience. We had a wide range of members with combat experience, students, academics, citizens interested in national defense, etc. They are all welcome to post and share their ideas.
That doesn't mean thin skinned people will be like engaging in the SWJ council, because their ideas will certainly be challenged and often bluntly. That is a lot different than attacking the individual.
If personal attacks continue, we'll ban that individual for the greater good.
AP---regardless of how you spin it--you do realize Russia is in an undeclared war with the Ukraine fought with Russian troops and irregulars using UW in support to it's political warfare to the tune of 15K fighters --the figure given by the irregulars themselves who are receiving MRL/artillery strike support almost daily by the Russian Army firing into the Ukraine and Russia is actively sending in heavy weapons.Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanPride
So again you do know what an undeclared war is and the same for political warfare and you know as well the new Russian UW military doctrine-with all eight steps of which we are seeing currently the first four steps in play-right?
You plead for negotiations and do not want a war---negotiations over what and if you think the sanctions will not work as you seem to state --so again AP what is left for you to suggest as solutions.
Sell apples on the street and use the money to purchase back the Crimea and eastern Ukraine?
Come on AP you have got to have better solutions--especially since the article you referenced is really a disguised lanced Russian land for land proposal and this is what the "success" of negotiations --ask the Ukrainians if they think it will work?
Again you do know what an undeclared war is right?
I would be interested in know whether there is a code of conduct for moderators? If there is, it should be publically available. If not it would explain why there is no consistency and some cases some pretty unethical conduct by moderators.
It may not be apparent to you but an individuals background and experience is absolutely critical to his ability to comment on a subject. Your example of combat... no one who has not been involved in significant combat can possibly matters relating with any seriousness. Surely you understand this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Moore