Germany has seized control of Gazprom Germania(businessinsider.com) |
Germany has seized control of Gazprom Germania(businessinsider.com) |
Some in this thread have asked how Germany could be so foolish to tie its economic destiny to such a problematic country as Russia.
The answer seems to be "one step at a time." And Germany is not unique.
Take the United States, for example, and its near total dependency on Chinese manufacturing for, well, just about everything. The US offshored manufacturing capacity hand-over-fist. In exchange the US got cheap goods (and low inflation), and continued supremacy of the dollar in world trade and as a reserve asset.
Both of those benefits are looking shakier by the week. Inflation is ripping higher, and the sanctions on Russia have prompted what some observers are calling Bretton Woods III, or a brand new economic order that minimizes the position of the US dollar.
But the worst part of all is the enormous leverage China has over the US. The US can protest human rights violations or even an attack on Taiwan, but any serious action taken against China will visit upon the US the same fate as Germany now faces. The brave threats can not be made good on because of an economic hole dug over the course of a generation or two.
The irony is that if you wind the clock back 25 years or so, this situation is the same in direction (although possibly not in magnitude) as policy makers wanted. Free trade was supposed to make conflicts more difficult because of mutual dependency. And it has worked. Just look at the disconnect between the saber-rattling German/US rhetoric and the tepid German/US actions.
It can be really tempting to look at this as bad for the US, but this is really just catastrophic for Russia. Decades of investment blown up, with one of the only real non-kinetic weapons that they have.
As Chancellor, he began the phaseout of nuclear energy and approved the Nord Stream gas pipeline directly from Russia to Germany.
Today he's:
1. The Chairman of Nord Stream, the company that owns the pipeline
2. The Chairman of Rosneft, the third largest company in Russia
3. A member of the board of directors of Gazprom, the largest company in Russia
You figure it out.
The bottom line is that European integration is a natural phenomenon. It is natural to have strong economic ties within one's neighborhood. You don't need a decades long conspiracy to explain basic economic advantage.
However, European/Eurasian integration is an existential problem for the one superpower that isn't part of Eurasia. Therefore we get a lot of chaos, misinformation, and artificial divisions.
They should also definitely remember what they did to cause this.
But this is not at all bad for the US, it’s great! Russia is isolated and weakened and the EU is strangulated by yet another wave of refugees and weakened economically, becoming even more dependent on the US for security.
So we are dependent on Russia for Energy, on China for Manufacturing and industrial demand of our most important industrial sectors and are protected by the US from a National Security point of view.
The army is a national laughing stock, the car industry is begging to be disrupted, and chinese equipment and machinery companies have completed their IP theft programs and are now almost at par from an innovation level.
All while international media hailed Merkel and her useful idiots for their international leadership.
Imo only the US, China and partially Russia (and maybe India) can be really autarchic, all of these countries that span almost an entire continent (or a big part of it).
Not sure if there's a solution to all of this, from Europe's point of view. Ideally by this point we should have had a genuine political and societal union (I'm from Romania myself, another EU member), but that has failed, it is failing (of course that the powers that be refuse to acknowledge that). Without that genuine political and societal union one cannot have an autarchic Europe.
Edit: Likewise, watching Germany dismantle its nuclear infrastructure over the last several decades for… what reason exactly? Replacing a clean, cheap, on-demand energy source for dependence on foreign energy imports? Even if you think global trade is panacea, why throw out working critical infrastructure and replace it with something beyond control?
Gas has been a popular choice, because it is a lot cleaner than coal / light oil / wood from a local pollution perspective. It burns cleanly, so switching to gas heating significantly reduces pollution in cities.
Nuclear energy is NOT clean, because it has the huge unsolved problem of what to do with the radioactive waste. Nobody wants radioactive waste anywhere near them, and there just isn't any place where you can put radioactive waste where it will be safe for a few hundred years.
But the biggest reason for our fear of nuclear energy is Chernobyl. It's been 37 years, and Chernobyl is still a danger.
The answer seems to be "one step at a time." And Germany is not unique.
Quite quick actually. The ex chancellor of germany [0] became Nord Streams' [1] Chairman of the Shareholders' Committee (since 2006)
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schröder
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream
edit: correction and add link
It's completely brazen.
The commercial relationship between the USA and China is much different. First, it consists of thousands of businesses and millions of consumers: it's not so easy to stop the flow (you can ban some of it, but there are workarounds). For many of those goods, there will be substitutes. Finally, this wasn't something explicitly decided by the USA government.
The U.S. used Chinese factories because they were cheap. Emphasis on "were." Companies have been switching away from China en masse (to India, Vietnam, Thailand, etc.) for at least the past decade because China is no longer the cheap option. Frequently, including shipping costs (even before COVID) it was cheaper to just get stuff made in America if you could find a supplier. Hell, my last 3 years at a firm were devoted almost entirely to helping companies restructure their international operations out of China to cheaper countries.
The U.S. won't take serious action against China because China took Russia's place as the global counterweight to the U.S. But it has absolutely nothing to do with China's so-called economic leverage, because China doesn't have any over the U.S. anymore.
And perhaps most importantly defused the worker radicalism of the 60s/70s by literally moving the means of production out from under them.
Part of the reason inflation is ripping higher (and this was beginning to happen even pre-pandemic) was because the previous administration began tradewars which began to rip up global supply chains. Yes, the bulk of our inflation currently is due to the pandemic, but a good chunk of it was going to start happening anyway even if the pandemic never happened because we began to disrupt global wage arbitrage. Bringing jobs back to America was always going to lead to a period of inflation.
The prevailing political view, was that strong economic ties would make war and violent conflict between Germany and Russia impossible. This is basically what happened intentionally and successfully between Germany and France after World War II first with European Coal and Steel Community and later the European Union.
You know, if you go down that path it will never end. It's like the gold standard. It's going to fail every single time. Bretton Woods is doomed to fail. It was doomed to fail the day it was introduced.
Thankfully for some very key industries we still have onshore manufacturing and that is increasing in modern times.
Or were there other reasons for not diving into that technology with two feet in front, rather than try to sunset it?
If they had liquidated, those contracts would have been gone and the Gas dealers & utilities would have had to renegotiate new contracts with Gazprom Russia. This would have allowed them to require payments in Rubles instead of Euros.
It also has contracts with Gazprom in Russia with guaranteed Prices and Deliveries.
Is anyone under an illusion that Gazprom in Russia will honor these contracts, now that their branch was seized? And if not, what methods are there to enforce these contracts?
The Russians seized the planes, which can fly but need spares and checks. The Germans seized the pipelines and the storage. Both have some utility in the interim, but both are ultimately useless.
In this case because both parties need it (for now) even through currently neither of them wants it. (Russia needs the money, Germany the Gas, if Russia could afford it they would already have cut of Gas to destabilize Germany. If Germany could afford it they would already have cut payments to force Russia to stop the war.)
Also I think some people misunderstand what sizing means in this context it doesn't mean "hey this is now ours" but is much more subtle and complex, and most important temporary by nature.
- NATO, apparently delusional
The idea people will “honor” contracts while you’re (illegally) seizing their property in effort to enact an economic siege of their nation is mental illness — either delusions or megalomania. That strategy doesn’t make sense.
I’m personally sad to see how deluded US and EU leaders are.
The German state seized a local German branch of the Russian Gazprom company. In order to secure its energy supplies... which come from Russia.
Are they in essence capturing some reserves?
And other than losing money, what would be the consequences of Gazprom pulling out of Germany completely? I’m guessing that Russia just doesn’t have enough economic leverage to do so.
Russia decided to use the gas as a weapon and germany decided to use its financial structure (I.e. its ties to many other countries) as a weapon back. In the medium and long term I think Russia needs germany more than the other way around.
More broadly: your business is in trouble if it only has a small number of customers or suppliers. That diversity provides resilience. In geopolitical terms, it’s it’s fine to have only overseas suppliers (and even good from a comparative advantage perspective) as long as they aren’t correlated. Germany’s bet (wrong) was that making an oversized commitment on Russia would provide a welcome guarantee to reduce the chance of isolationism, That didn’t work. But Russia made the opposite bet: that the commitment meant they had a stranglehold on Germany. But Germany is too rich and has too many friends for that to be any more than a transient threat.
I think we live in a dangerously intertwined world, and a bit of email redundancy in each country would be quite important.
Plenty of LNG ships and suppliers. Cheap gas is not worth an immense cost of human life. I think this timetable could be moved forward far quicker.
That said, sometimes you do need to make tough geo-political decisions, where every option has a horrible cost. While the primary blame falls on the aggressor nation, it doesn't make those decisions easier.
this action doesn't make much sense then, does it?
"Germany's economy minister announced the seizure in a statement on Monday. The move came after the ministry of economic affairs learned that Gazprom Germania had been acquired by JSC Palmary and Gazprom export business services LLC — but it wasn't clear who the owners behind the two companies were, per the statement."
I’m not sure what the levels are, seems like they’d be at a higher level since the flows could stop at literally any time since they refused Putin’s decree to pay in rubles.
I know it would be probably very hard for businesses dependent on LNG but we need to move from russian gas fast, not have 10 year plan that will take 30 in reality.
Every euro/USD paid will be mostly siphoned to re-building dictator's army. As much as they fucked up and still are fucking up now in Ukraine, next russian invasion may be much better executed. Let's not pay with our money for it, since his ultimate ambitions cover as much Europe as he will be allowed to grab and subjugate.
Everything of value of this subsidiary has (pipelines, stored gas, etc), is physically in Germany and already subject to German law. The stored gas wasn’t going anywhere without the German regulator’s permission and the regulator can always force Gazprom Germania to sell German stored gas to Germans.
Nor does seizing this magically solve the problem of lack of gas. The Germans either abide by Russian rules for gas, or pipelines coming in from Russia remain empty.
This was a boneheaded move. The Russians can now seize a comparable German asset in Russia to recompense Gazprom; say a VW plant, a real asset that can continue to produce real things while the Germans are left with old laptops, empty pipes, a salt cavern and unheated offices in Berlin.
If they (the Russians) had tried to vent Germany’s gas reserves (which wont happen because the employees are German) to kneecap them (the Germans), then you would have seen the German regulator do something.
> This would have allowed them to require payments in Rubles instead of Euros
"allowed" is a funny word - this situation is way past a point where cross-border contracts on either side hold any legal value. How are you going to hold anyone accountable for breach of contract?
Currently Russia has no right to sanction us, so anything they do is a further breach of ITO, which further deepens their case.
Diplomacy is important. The good guy has to respect the rules, or at least write them so we pretend that there are rules we adhere to.
This was a completely fraudulent construct. 100% of the voting rights were sold for the equivalent of 1 Euro to a single person with no serious business background (has dealt with cars and performed as a DJ). This is a company with billions of turnover. And 99.99999% of the ownership was bought back by the the company itself.
Edit: Source (paywalled, german) https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/gazprom-germania-hat-berei...
No,
sized here means "put under control of a trustee until the situation is resolved" it doesn't mean "take over ownership".
The reason that happens is because the persons(s) currently in control of Gazprom Germania did try to use that control to act against German law in a way which threatens national security.
This is also more about Gas infrastructure then Gas as far as I can tell.
My guess is that some Russian oligarch tried to move ownership to one (or potentially many) chains of "dummy" companies which obfuscate the actual owner and go through many other non-Russian nationalities. This e.g. would make many legal actions against Gazprom Germania harder as the new (dumy) "owner(s)" would not be from Russia or any other sanctioned state.
what legal action? Gazprom is not under any sanctions…
https://www-sueddeutsche-de.translate.goog/wirtschaft/erdgas...
It's also worth pointing out that there's been some evidence suggesting that, in the weeks and months leading up to the Russian invasion of the Ukraine, the "fill level" of the Russian-owned storage infrastructure within Germany was decreased, which would both be a way for Russia to attempt to leverage gas delivery against sanctions (in other words, blackmail), as well as yet another strong indication that the invasion was a deliberate Russian aggression planned well in advance.
If you're interested in more and understand German, I'd recommend the most recent episode of Lage der Nation, which talks about this at much more length: https://lagedernation.org/podcast/ldn284-ukraine-krieg-6-woc...
Its a political push and pull about who defaults on the existing contracts on gas import, seeing as Russia wants to be payed in ruble now, while Germany would prefer the payments to be stuck on a EU bank account as a form of reparation payments to the Ukraine. To prevent this outcome, Russia in effect might be liquidating the Gazprom Germania. With Gazprom Germania being the ones doing the actual importing. Over the last weekend there was a change in ownership of the Gazprom Germania to new unknown owners. So they might be already bankrupt. To prevent this, Germany is now seizing control of Gazprom Germania and might be on the hook to prevent an insolvency to not default on the contracts with Russia.
In short, the German government fucked up majorly.
edit: Check "throwhow"s post in this thread for a longer summary
He told the world up until February 23rd that everybody was dumb to believe that Russia would invade. I would not believe anything Fefe says on his blog, ever. He dips into conspiracy theories time and time again and when he gets proven wrong he just says that it was meant to be "media competency training".
Is that illegal?
I wonder about rule of law. We talk about this as sacrosanct here in the "West".
It is funny that when push comes to shove (in my perception at least), we're quick to break the rules to get the outcome we want.
When say a 3rd world country does something like this in response to a "Western" multinational's actions (perhaps a controversial example would be Mossadegh nationalizing APOC), then the response we take it is pretty severe (often involving significant amounts of violence) and we portray ourselves as being "morally" rightous, often with the very same "rule of law" claim.
Just something I like to think about in this scenario. Not trying to push any agenda.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-approves-law...
> In Germany, a third of gas storage belongs to Russia's Gazprom (GAZP.MM), whose facilities in Germany had lower levels of stored gas this winter than those operated by other companies.
In my opinion, Gazprom did so (last year) in order to strategically weaken Germany's position and strenghten Russia's position, by reducing the amount of gas that is stored in Germany.
If you really look for "sanctions" you'll see that there are some, but not really touching the energy sector since there is so far no viable alternative.
The biggest problem will be the quality of supplies, as sanctions will damage the supply chain.
What quality? Even in Austria, at some really busy McD's I've been to like the train station or airport, their finished burgers looked nothing like the ones in the menu.
Often they had components like the cheese, lettuce and sauces missing and I got just a dry paddy between two barren pieces of bread as a burger lol. It was uneatable so I had to throw it away and buy a sandwich from the SPAR next door which has much better quality.
The McD's I've had in NY weren't much better either.
OTOH, McCafe's in Europe (the separate establishment, not to be confused with the coffee you can get from McD's) are amazing, coffee is always great, on par with even fancy hipster cafes and their pastry and cakes aren't bad either.
Like buns and meat and so could be sourced locally. But spice (mixtures) may have been imported and the mixture recipe is locally unknown.
Deglobalization means you can't travel to Russia ;)
(Not sure if Americans can visit the place. There are downsides to deglobalization too...)
In case it refers to McDonald's: They already did. https://www.mashed.com/202684/the-real-reason-mcdonalds-got-...
Nuclear canceled by the Green Party and pre-March went all in on Russian oil and gas.
Who has been in power for the last 20 years exactly that could have built renewable power instead of quadrupling down on Russian gas? It wasn't the Green party.
To some extent you can't even substitute with gas from other sources because of lack of (connections to) LNG terminals.
Top men:
.. after Fukushima. Trading one tail risk for another.
(Germany has oddly lagged in deploying renewables, though. Possibly due to lack of offshore sites, meaning that wind farms have to be deployed against the efforts of NIMBYs)
We use LPG gas (from a tank buried at the bottom of the garden) feeding a gas boiler to heat our house.
I'm all for energy independence, and would love to switch to a more environmentally-friendly energy source, but I'm deeply concerned about how much this will cost me, and even if I did have the money, based on reports in local media, getting a heating engineer in would take many months.
Half a continent wants to switch energy supply "now" and the world was already suffering a serious supply chain crisis. Changing quickly may simply not be possible, never mind affordable.
The energy sector get almost as much subsidies as the total funding of the Germany military, 1.5% vs 2% of BNP.
It would be interesting to know how much more tax money is needed for an independent and environmentally friendly energy grid if they just continue as they done in the past.
The structure is rather complicated:
Afaik it works (or used to) this way:
There is Gaszprom (the Mother), Gazprom Export, Gazprom Germania and a bunch of distributors.
Gazprom sells to Gazprom Export which sells to Gazprom Germania which sells to its distributors.
This helps to evade taxes and allows for a bunch of nice management jobs to be distributed to German/Russian politicians.
The distributors pay the gas in Euro to Gazprom Germania which collects the money and sends it via Belgium to Gazprom Export.
With the Sanctions this would mean that that Gazprom Export could convert Euro to Rubles, so the Money in Belgium has been frozen.
To circumvent this Gazprom sold (or tried to) Gazprom Germania to some offshore entities out of the sanctions reach.
To hinder Gazprom to do this the German goverment tried to seize control but it might be already too late and they ended up with an empty shell.
> Germany's economy minister announced the seizure in a statement on Monday. The move came after the ministry of economic affairs learned that Gazprom Germania had been acquired by JSC Palmary and Gazprom export business services LLC — but it wasn't clear who the owners behind the two companies were, per the statement.
> Germany's economy ministry justified the takeover by saying it had not granted permission for the Gazprom Germania acquisition. Permission is required, the ministry said, if the investors are not from the European Union and "critical infrastructure" is involved.
GAZPROM mother sells gas to the Russian GAZPROM EXPORT OOO (the Russian version of a GmbH) in Petersburg. This sells the gas to GAZPROM Germania in Berlin. This in turn sells the gas to a large number of smaller subsidiaries with their various customers. So far, this strong division has served to minimize risks and taxes.
Customers pay the gas to the subsidiaries of GAZPROM Germania in EUR/USD. These are the much-cited “supply contracts”. GAZPROM Germania aggregates these payments and transfers them via Luxembourg (GAZPROM Bank) to the Russian GAZPROM EXPORT.
Therefore, only GAZPROM Germania (for Germany) is affected by the conversion of payments to GAZPROM EXPORT from EUR/USD to rubles. After all, end consumers in Germany do not buy from GAZPROM AG in SPB or from GAZPROM EXPORT in SPB, but from the subsidiaries of GAZPROM Germania. The new legal situation in the RF will not change anything for these end users with their EUR/USD contracts.
Instead of transferring the EUR/USD to Luxembourg, where these funds can be "frozen" at any time, GAZPROM Germania is now transferring the aggregated payments from its subsidiaries to Moscow, where they are forcibly converted and effectively revalue the ruble. To a certain extent, these funds are thus withdrawn from the EU's options for sanctions. And Habeck and Co. can (almost) do nothing about it.
But the west doesn't want that. The idea of the western values is that GAZPROM Germania receives payments from the subsidiaries, but cannot pass these funds on. At the given moment GAZPROM Germania can then be confiscated as part of a further level of sanctions together with its considerable account balances. The RF would then have supplied gas without receiving any payment. The moral justification for such an expropriation would then be “reparations to Ukraine”. The USA in particular has experience in this. Private German companies were selectively expropriated after 1918 in order to "pay" for war damage by the German Reich.
What is the counter-strategy of the RF?
GAZPROM (mother) instructs GAZPROM EXPORT to liquidate GAZPROM Germania. This eliminates the commercially necessary intermediate step for gas trading, the trading chain is interrupted and the supply comes to a standstill. Not because someone turned off the tap, but because the importer is "bankrupt". However, since this would be a quasi-hostile act by the RF (specifically planned insolvency of a strategic utility company), they do it more skilfully: GAZPROM Germania is sold. To shady offshore companies whose owners nobody knows and whose cash flows are as yet unknown. And these offshore companies first withdraw the capital from Luxembourg, leaving behind a GAZPROM Germania as an empty shell, which is then sent into insolvency.
Habeck wants to forestall this scenario. The BMWi places GAZPROM Germania under receivership in order to prevent GAZPROM Germania's assets from flowing out to the new owners. And to prevent GAZPROM Germania from transferring the capital collected from the subsidiaries to Moscow for compulsory exchange.
Only GAZPROM EXPORT could now stop selling to GAZPROM Germania if GAZPROM Germany does not pay in rubles.
The only question now is how quick the "new owners" were over the weekend. Because GAZPROM Germania was supposedly sold on April 1, 2022. So now, four days later, it is unclear whether GAZPROM Germania is already insolvent. If so, then Habeck and Co. would have a problem. On the one hand, they would have to save the company with significant financial contributions, if necessary, and on the other hand, they would then have the buck in their hands. Because if you now instruct the management of GAZPROM Germania not to bill in RUB, as requested by GAZPROM EXPORT, then you are breaking the contracts, not RF. After all, GAZPROM Germania and GAZPROM EXPORT can specify any currency for internal settlement, and these are in rubles for GAZPROM EXPORT by law.
The Arab monarchies largely keep their messes in their own backyards. When there has been leakage, it has been limited. Russia rolling tanks into Europe is so harebrained it creates a new category of security risk we haven’t had close to home in a while: that of a madman.
At the same time, gas is a relatively enviromentally safe, when compared to others, and since the relations to Russia were mostly friendly, the slight problems in the regime were ignored.
Now germany is reliant on them, and that was a mistake they are realizing. But if germany stops accepting gas today, the germans will freeze in the winter when the gas runs out, so its a complicated situation.
The much larger problem is industrial manufacturing, in clusters like Ludwigshafen, where you have companies like BASF and Benckiser that rely on Russian gas for their refinery operations.
Fertilizers, chemicals, lubricants, etc.
You turn off Russian gas, you turn off the German industrial complex. Literally over night.
And that’s the reason why the German is so cagey about stopping the import of Russian gas. They can’t, because they don’t have an alternative.
And yet there are still people, in this very thread, that say that Merkel was always against German dependence on Russian gas but could not do anything about it. For 16 years!
>This awkward situation is all her doing, but still nobody will mention her name.
There is more "evidence" that Merkel is a long-term Russian intelligence asset, recruited from her youth in East Germany,[1] than that of Trump being the same. One guess on which claim is incessantly repeated by the bien-pensants of the chattering classes.
[1] Something else never talked about is how her parents moved from West to East Germany when she was a baby
1: https://verfassungsblog.de/illiberal-democracy-beyond-hungar...
It goes well beyond politics, as you can see.
I'm from as Eastern Europe as it gets (European side of Istanbul) and people seem to like me here. Why do you think that they dislike East Europeans?
I mean, Germans don't seem to like the current government of the country where I'm from, but for good reasons and I certainly share their dislike!
Whereas if we do not receive gas anymore, it would wreck our own economies, which would lead to massive unemployment, social unrest and maybe going to the political extremes in the long run.
It would basically be European suicide. We need to be strong to help Ukraine.
That being said, the day we can stop paying for Russian gas is the day we will truly be free. Germany's liberatarian finance minster called renewables "freedom energy" and that could not be truer IMO.
It's news to me that we strongly dislike Eastern Europeans?!
Some folks definitely do, especially in logistics or people who live close to the border, mostly due to economic frustration regarding lost jobs and some amount of crime coming from Eastern Europe but Germany as a whole doesn't dislike Eastern Europe...
The reparations bill (both during and after the war) will be high and I assume various assets, including foreign currency reserves, will end up going to fund the reconstruction of Ukraine.
> In Germany, a third of gas storage belongs to Russia's Gazprom (GAZP.MM), whose facilities in Germany had lower levels of stored gas this winter than those operated by other companies.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-approves-law...
Honestly, I'm quite surprised how consistently and tough the new government plays the Ukraine crisis.
The dollar is inflating at the same time the reserve currency status is threatened, and we Americans, via our allies, are appropriating the stuff of foreigners, seizing boats, currency, gold, and property. I think >400B has been seized at this point.
How long until we move from "Russia Bad!" to other groups, and start turning inward onto ourselves, seizing their property because they are politically unpopular?
They can and they do. Enforcing any kind of international agreements in this situation is pure fiction.
> The good guy has to respect the rules
The existence of a bad guy doesn't imply the existence of a good guy.
Venue depends on the contract. ITO only has jurisdiction where countries have submitted to it.
In case somebody can refute the explanation (or give a better one) of the Gazprom structure and motivation, i would be happy to hear the problem with it. As i see it, despite the rambling its a short and concise explanation of who does what why.
Add another supplier, load it up, use pre-existing storage and distribution, Gazprom replaced.
This is also why this is so dangerous from a legal perspective. Gazprom probably spent a great deal building this network and storage. Only to have it seized....
And I obviously won't defend German businesses (or for that matter businesses in general).
But believe me when I say that the average German has no problems with Eastern Europeans. Funny that you mention Romania, I work in a decent sized software company and my team lead is from Romania and beloved by us all and the company (and, as a team lead, better payed than most German engineers in the company). However, even among normal citizens, stereotypes and a sense of superiority can be found in certain circles. But I gurantee you it is a (vocal) minority. Salary for tech workers is generally low in Germany (and maybe the EU as a whole?) especially compared to the UK or US.
Racial profiling of the kind you describe is definitely not "according to German law", we have several anti-discriminatory laws on the books. But, of course, reality can't live up the ideals.
If you need help regarding those clearly illegal circumstances or situations (especially regarding police and lodging) there is the Federal Anti-Discriminatory Agency [1], which has guidelines.
1: https://www.antidiskriminierungsstelle.de/EN/about-discrimin...
When there is no free exchange rate is not very meaningful.
This is definitely a less than zero-sum environment. Russia would have been better off not invading Ukraine, along with Europe and the US. A peaceful and international law abiding Russia would be a stronger and richer Russia.
Perhaps Russia shouldn't invade their neighbors. It seems to make their neighbors not like them.
This conflict can again strengthen the european institutions and maybe result in some more reforms for the EU (and hopefully some democratic advances, although unlikely considering orban etc.).
They will (probably)get there, but they're not at the big leagues just yet.
Russia was thought to maybe be at that level, but the war is showing how hollow their military is, and maybe how wobbly their economy is.
ПАО Gazprom (the _actual_ Gazprom; ПАО is a Russian joint-stock company) owns another Russian company (Gazprom Export OOO; OOO is a Russian LLC), which in turn owned Gazprom Germania GmbH (GmbH is a German LLC).
ПАО Gazprom sold gas to Gazprom Export, which in turn sold gas to Gazprom Germania, which in turn sells the gas to the actual European companies.
The change in Russian law which switches the currency to rubles affects the transactions between Gazprom Export OOO and Gazprom Germania GmbH (which were previously both owned by Russia), which made the settlement an "internal" affair of Gazprom for German exports.
(This stuff is fairly well established and you can look at the German & Russian company registers, the legal text of the Russian decree etc. for more detailed information. The next part is less well understood)
Previously this settlement took place through Gazprom Germania sending money from its German account(s) to an account of held in Gazprombank Luxembourg (GPB International S.A., a Luxembourgian Public Limited Company). This account may be a correspondence account for a Gazprombank Russia account owned by Gazprom Export, it's unclear. These funds can be frozen by the EU (and I think are, leading to the Russian claim that they're currently supplying some gas for "free").
With the law change in Russia, this transfer must now happen to a new type of currency account established by Gazprombank Russia (though it's unclear / not publicly known how those are backed, e.g. whether it's also through correspondent accounts at GBP International S.A.) where it is automatically sold and converted into rubles, which are then transferred to Gazprom Export in Russia.
Now an important bit that most people don't seem to get is that none of this affects pricing, it's akin to a change in payment method. The supply contracts between e.g. the European gas purchasers and Gazprom Germania have complicated pricing schemes which are likely tied to one or more currencies (EUR & USD) and Russia is sticking to those pricing agremeents - but insisting on changing how the settlement happens.
What is kind of unclear at the moment is what Gazprom stands to gain from the sale (and subsequent (attempted?) liquidation of Gazprom Germania). There are a handful of theories about this, but in practice we probably won't know for a while.
It's not as if this hasn't happened before. The 'EuroDollar' came about after the invasion of Hungary in 1956. Russia has just invented the 'RuskiEuro', which is how the Bank of Russia will hold Euros for the duration - probably in settlement accounts at the National Clearing Centre in Moscow.
[0]: https://www.luxtimes.lu/en/business-finance/rubles-for-gas-p...
The first known eurodollar account was opened in France for China during the Korean War, in 1949 [1]. The phenomenon is a result of the Marshall Plan, which left lots of physical dollars overseas and thus outside U.S. jurisdiction.
My gut feeling is, that the EU, without any commodities, has a single choice: kick the Russian gas habit immediately, and force Russia to kill their western gas fields. Then pray they collapse in the next few years.
If the EU keeps paying - Russia's new Gazprom central bank controlled RuskiEuro reserves will stabilize its economy and it will rise like a phoenix from the ashes. Even if we kick the gas habit, this might still happen if Putin keeps his thumb on public sentiment enough.
[0]https://www.credit-suisse.com/about-us-news/en/articles/news...
The banking system makes a handsome fee making that particular piece of alchemy happen.
Gory details about how this particular trick is pulled off is here[0] if you're interested.
[0]: https://new-wayland.com/blog/how-russian-gas-is-paid-for/
(he is sitting on russian gas companies’ boards, after heavily going against nuclear). No shit the leaders failed the country for their own gains, seems like.
More to the point, Hanlon's Razor is usually an excuse to do nothing, which is a mistake.
It's better to assume that people intend the likely outcome of their actions. If they want to claim stupidity/incompetence as a defene, that's on them.
Essentially, I'm saying that the last part of your argument falls under the "vaguely gesturing at imagined hypocrisy" category.
That crisis was caused by instability in Middle East. Which was caused by several other factors like climate (farms without water in Syria) and international politics of Russia and USA. But like now everyone was blaming Germany.
Globally, nuclear has lower deaths per kWh than even wind, and significantly lower than natural gas or oil. From a US centric perspective, nuclear energy is by far the safest by an order of magnitude[0]. Even a catastrophe like Chernobyl resulted in the deaths of fewer people than a single year of oil and gas drilling.
0 - https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/01/25/natural-g...
In theory, to some extent. But it's mostly an academic argument. The power plants that are currently in use that people are protesting against do not recycle their waste.
This argument feels a lot like you are just passing the ball to the next generation. "Hey kids, we used up all the uranium for cheap power and left you with caves full of radioactive waste. But don't worry, you can recycle it!"
As for the dangers of nuclear vs. gas, the big difference is where the danger is. Nuclear power plants bring the danger close to the population, and people just don't want that.
And finally, another issue that noone appears to mention is that electric heating isn't very popular here. Most people heat their homes with gas furnaces, so even if we'd switch to nuclear power we would need to replace millions of furnaces and massively expand the electric grid. (This is slowly changing. Lots of new homes use good insulation and electric heat pumps for heating instead of gas, but it's not something that can be easily retrofitted in existing homes)
There’s nothing wrong with saying the government fucked up (though I don’t think it did). But the non sequitur opinion doesn’t add to the discussion.
What about the nuclear reactors that DE chose to shut down for Russian natural gas?
However that could creates some creativity in place and create similar, but different (better? Worse? Who knows) products.
Compare this to Coca Cola in Germany during WW2. Due to the embargos they couldn't deliver the "secret syrup" so Coca Cola Germany used some "fantasy" and created (the predecessor of) Fanta, which nowadays is a brand of Coca Cola served in multiple countries (with differeing recipes)
Fanta is now nothing special either, just a sugary fizzy drink with orange flavoring that can be done better by other local companies.
Coca Cola is just a branding and marketing juggernaut at this point, but their drinks themselves are easily replaceable by better local alternatives at any time.
Come to think of it, banning Coca-Cola could actually be a health benefit for the population lol.
I remember that in Mexico there are poor villages addicted to Coca-Cola where the company uses local water to make the drinks and the villagers have no access to clean tap water and have obesity and diabetes from all the coke they drink, and all is sponsored buy the Coca-Cola and their lobbying. Absolutely disgusting.
It bubbled over with Fukushima, the a roiling and boiling mid-life crisis for an entire subculture. Consequences or the Russia variable provided little resistance to the Zeitgeist - the biggest "I told you so" in decades. There was no planning to be done.
That Russia would finance the Greens doesn't automatically what the Greens advocate for wrong, or that the Greens are actually traitors, what it does is twofold - start a process whereby the Greens can over time be corrupted (via the money spout), and indicate that whatever the Greens are doing there may be unintended side effects which would be of benefit to Russia.
Wrong and baseless. It is possible to simultaneously reduce nuclear and fossil components in the energy balance and this is exactly what is happening.
> why wouldn't they covertly finance anti-nuclear if they overtly finance pro-fossil?
Greens in Germany are established political party with clear anti-Putin positioning. Financing of political parties in Germany is transparent and has sufficient oversight, so there’s neither possibility nor any sense to covertly finance them.
> Greens are pro-environment, but don't offer substitute energy sources
Where did you get that from?
The fundamental of all of these is oil and now, gas. Removing the demand for these will remove the necessity of engaging with these propped up monarchies and autocracies.
Relative to what's going on in Ukraine, it is. 9/11 was a massive terrorist attack. Next to the scale of state-on-state warfare (a category it does not belong in), it was a rounding error.
Agree that de-carbonising our economy will remove our need to support these regimes.
And Europe is reacting to it appropriately.
My point was that it's ultimately about geopolitics, not the feigned morality the GP was alluding to.
9/11
This is surely too high a standard!
Did Coke ever give you the satisfaction of the people in the Christmas adverts?
Did you get girls after you bought Lynx?
Did you score more goals with those Predators?
Sure, I get it, having underpaid and overworked people making your food is not a recipe for a great experience, but ultimately I paid in full, the company got their money and I didn't get the product I ordered, which is why I jusy stopped eating there, since I don't like being "THAT GUY" who ask for "the manager" in order to complain about overworked people on minimum wage that they got his order wrong and they need to redo the order while 10 more customers are waiting in line.
This is nonsense. Gazprom Germania attempted an illegal transfer of ownership. From what I can tell, Germany isn't appropriating anything. It's just seizing control in a regulatory measure.
> Da die Gazprom Germania GmbH jedoch kritische Infrastruktur betreibe, müsse jeder Erwerb durch einen Nicht-EU-Investor vom Ministerium genehmigt werden. Unklar sei, wer wirtschaftlich und rechtlich hinter den beiden genannten Unternehmen stehe. Zudem habe der Erwerber "die Liquidierung der Gazprom Germania angeordnet, was, so lange der Erwerb nicht genehmigt ist, nicht rechtmäßig ist".
(Use Google Translate etc.)
So the sale had to be ratified by the ministry, which didn't happen. Gazprom ran afoul of the law, the government stepped in and took over temporarily.
But of course this is the internet, the more radical nonsense you spread, and the more emotional outrage your project, the more clicks you get...
[1] https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/gazprom-ger...
Russia has just had its foreign reserves frozen. Those are debts too, which the West has repudiated. Why shouldn't Russia do the same in reverse?
Countries export solely to gain imports if they have any sense. If there are no imports to be had - due to sanctions - then there is no need to export. Far better, from Russia's point of view, that the oil is left in the ground, and the workers redeployed elsewhere. To the war effort for example.
Btw even the USSR which was generally much more autarkic couldn’t survive without foreign currency for energy exports. What makes you think modern Russia could? Also it was illegal for workers to leave Russia back then, unlike now (so assuming there are countries willing to accept them they might be more likely to choose that over ‘being redirected to work in the war industry’.
I guess the answer to that would be "and Germany can keep their cash and maybe have to burn it to heat homes or generate electricity"?
The war we're seeing (the economic war) is a point of mini-singularity, where a lot of we know to be true about the world is invalid. Such as an assumption that a state having debts will actually pay them.
The State Department would strongly disagree with you. Victoria Nuland recently gloated that they have spent over $5,000,000,000 supporting anti-Russian movements in Ukraine in the post-Soviet era.
How about nuclear?
https://thebreakthrough.org/blog/the-true-face-of-the-anti-n...
In the US, natural gas normally refers to methane (CH4) heating, attached to a city methane heating grid. I pay a monthly bill per cubic foot of methane burned. Currently my water heater and furnace are methane. I live near Kansas City.
How often tanks are refilled depends upon your particular usage pattern and the time of year. Refills can occur on demand, on an automatic basis determined by looking at your past usage patterns or as in my case triggered by an IoT connected meter which notifies my propane supplier when my tanks fall below a pre-determined level. Depending on the time of year it can be 3 months or 6 months between fills.
Not sure if it was an actual blocker, or just a statement that there was no plan to install infrastructure.
Yup, dug into the ground when the house was built, and refilled basically once every two years ever since.
Given I used to be a lab chemist, it's oddly fascinating watching the tanker drive up and then the best part of 1000kg of propane is pumped into a tank under part of your garden...
We were told "no naked flames within 3m of the tank" - we BBQ at the other end of the garden :)
In the US, there is nothing unusual about a 1,000 gallon tank that you might fill twice a year.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/german-ministries-say-c...
DE wants to instead setup other renewables, such as wind, at Tesla speed.
Comparing DE government bureaucracy to Musk's Tesla is ludicrous.
And nuclear if you actually produce them in larger numbers it actually gets quite cheap.
Had Germany spend all the money they put into solar/wind into nuclear 20 years ago they would be finishing 1-2 nuclear reactor each year right now.
I myself spend some time in bread and a part of the taste of bread comes from my bacteria/yeast culture growing here at my place, feeding of stuff which is in the air at my place. If i go elsewhere that already changes to a small degree. If I vary temperature, humidity of air ... this has impact. On industrial scale the impacts are way more as they use processes to ensure the end product stays as much the same as possible independently from changes to ingredients (natural products change with each harvest ...) and where it is processed further (a Big Mac is, by McD, supposed to be as equal lgibally as possible) this is done by having Enzyms, chemicals and other comments doing their work.
The effects of oil and gas embargo will be felt by Russian population earliest by the end of summer, effectively being a punishment rather than a deterrent. We should aim to end the war long before that and stop talking about this and other populist but unrealistic ideas like no-fly zone.
In the short term we are seeing employees at European harbors and other places being put to the moral dilemma of either refusing to work or continuing working with Russian transports, knowing that they are working directly with the economic side of the Russian military branch. Many do not want to have to look in the mirror in a few months, knowing what they did, knowing what they knew, feeling like they have blood on their hands. Saving jobs and saving the economy is a poor comfort when on the news they see ordinary citizens laying on the street with a bullet in the head.
Every nation hope that wars will end in just a few days, weeks or months. Blitzkrieg. It will be over by the weekend. The Russian thought so when they entered Ukraine and they were wrong. It a nice aim to hope that the war will be long gone before the summer, but realistic there is a high risk that it won't. The assumption when funding war should be that the war isn't going to end.
But germans have also murdered a lot of people not abiding by the societies rules, especially east germans back in the day.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinations_by_th...
But I suppose you solution is to just kill all the refugees by letting them drown or whatever. Which, I suppose, is one way to solve a perceived "refugee crisis", but it wouldn't be my first choice.
The US has a 650 mile border wall with Mexico exactly for this reason. Most of this border barrier was actually built during the Obama administration, Trump just used it as a campaign objective to build a "big, beautiful wall" instead of a fence.
A fence does not necessarily bar a country from accepting refugees, but offers better border enforcement and so does an adequate coast guard. If a state can't even enforce its borders, there is no state to begin with. When human traffickers are discouraged, they'll look for other sources of income.
I'm not for building fences and walls, but I can't really imagine other alternatives that actually work at enforcing borders at least to some extent.
It's a bit more complex than that. Following the liberalization of the gas market, "discount providers" appeared who simply bought on the spot market because that is usually drastically cheaper than long-term contracts, and also the large utilities shifted parts of their purchase to spot market contracts for the same reason. For many years this worked just fine from an outside POV, and the margins on the retail gas price that the utilities made were usually large enough to account for short-term supply price hikes without having to raise new capital or retail prices. All seemed to be well.
Last year, people noticed that Gazprom's storage facilities were unusually low. Gazprom of course denied any wrongdoing, they claimed they are fulfilling their contractual obligations and that's it. Which is objectively true and as a result, no regulatory agency had any legal authority to step in.
And now, with the invasion ongoing (and for a few months prior), Gazprom still kept their long-term contracts but unlike all the prior times did not supply much on the spot market - which led to the well observed price hikes and utilities going bankrupt or out of business because their "old" strategy of simply buying on the spot market didn't work out.
The responsibility for the current situation rests to a large part on the utilities who forewent resilience (in form of more expensive long running contracts) in favor of short term profits. We dug our own and the Ukrainian's graves at the same time.
That being said, just to clarify: the discussions I was referencing in the GP comment suggest that Gazprom has not been acting as a good-faith rational actor, and has in fact been keeping their storage infrastructure even less full than you would expect due to high gas prices.
Yes, I merely explained how they were able to deflect the accusations of acting in bad faith for so long.
Gazprom was leaving literal billions of dollars on the table by not offering any meaningful spot contracts for months now, until the invasion began - a fact that no one could explain with anything else but war preparations, and war was seen as a ridiculous idea almost everywhere, so public discussion was simply left at "we have no idea what they are doing in Moscow".
What do you expect to happen when long-term contracts get tied to spot prices? Why the hell would Gazprom willingly lower the spot prices when bulk of its sales will suffer from it?
Because that is what they have done for the last decades - the pipelines have more than enough capacity, even without NS2. They only stopped selling on the short-term market last year.
The only explanation why Gazprom was leaving that obscene mountain of money on the table is because they have been ordered to do so by Vladolf himself, so that he has leverage against Germany in the Ukraine invasion.
Are there people out there who have doubts about this? Regardless of any opinions on the rationale behind it, it's very clearly something that was planned in advance. I didn't think that was something that was up for debate.
Which is not to say there's not also NIMBYism. There is in fact a ton of opposition to buildup of renewables from both conservative-leaning citizens and left/green-leaning advocacy groups.
We don't stop flying after planes get into an accident. We evaluate and improve our designs and controls
But with nuclear with go with knee-jerk reaction for some reason
The last German government before Merkel came to power, was a coalition between the Green party and the Social-Democrats (SPD), this government decided to phase-out nuclear power in Germany in favor of renewable energy by limiting the running time of existing nuclear power plants.
The next German government was a coalition between conservative CDU under Merkel and SPD, and the nuclear phase-out remained untouched.
But when Merkel won the federal elections a second time and was able to form a coalition with the Liberal-Democrats (FDP) replacing of the SPD as a coalition partner, who had voted in favor of the nuclear phase-out, they decided to cancel the nuclear phase-out.
This happened in the autumn of 2010 and was a controversial decision for the public opinion. When Fukushima happened half year later it was widely seen as a confirmation of the inherent risks of nuclear energy and thus the Green party’s energy politics, not because Germany is especially prone to Tsunamis, but because it showed that it's impossible to rule out and plan for every possible dangerous situation in advance, and that even a high-tech country like Japan, on a comparable technical level to Germany, was not able to stop the meltdowns.
Elections in federal states shortly after Fukushima resulted in a landslide loss for Merkel's CDU and big wins for the Green party, the CDU losing one of its stronghold states [1] it had before held constantly for 58 years.
As far as I remember Merkel foresaw the public reaction and almost immediately after Fukushima voiced out in favor of reversing the cancelation of the nuclear phase-out, but could only get a solid backing in her party, after the losses in the federal state elections.
[1] https://www.swissinfo.ch/ger/-fukushima-strahlt-bis-baden-wu...
That reason is propaganda. The anti-nuclear people use anything they can to whip people up into an irrational frenzy whenever anything happens, and it has worked pretty well.
It's not actually sparsely populated at all.
The statistical risks from nuclear actually causing a disaster are absolutely tiny in comparison, especially considering the upsides, but the Germans and Austrians want to be EU's nuclear doomers for shits and giggles just because Chernobyl and Fukushima happened, even though so many nuclear plants worldwide have run for decades without issue.
But sucking on the sweeet teat of Putin's gas for decades and burning it was the "greener" alternative for them instead.
If 'tax the rich' works and reduces the power of the rich, then hasn't the West just taxed the rich of Russia and reduced their power to remove Putin?
Democrats can't have it both ways. They propose a billionaire tax in the USA to reduce the power of the rich to interfere with people in charge, then actually implement a billionaire tax in Russia and expect it to increase their ability to interfere with people in charge. It's an illogical position to hold.
"Btw even the USSR which was generally much more autarkic couldn’t survive without foreign currency for energy exports. What makes you think modern Russia could?"
If there are sanctions in place, what are they going to spend the 'foreign currency' on?
You can't eat dollars.
"so assuming there are countries willing to accept them they might be more likely to choose that"
The 'leave for other countries' is a globalist position. Most ordinary people are rooted in social support constructs on the ground. They don't leave, and prefer their own country.
In fact the attitude to those who leave from those who remain is likely to be good riddance to bad rubbish.
> West just taxed the rich of Russia and reduced their power to remove Putin?
Arguably no. They’ve lost access to some of their wealth in the west but their actual power relvant (in the form of companies they own in Russia is still in Russia). So the expectation is that loosing access to the west would incentivize them to use any power they still have to get rid of Putin. Considering how intertwined their sources of wealth and power are with current regime I’m not sure how likely is that. But basically the west wants to make it so that keeping Putin in power would seem more expensive than replacing him with something/someone else.
> You can't eat dollars.
Individuals still want to buy foreign good (while they might be harder to access or more expensive it’s still possible to acquire them).
Also most people would probably prefer to store their savings in USD/CHF/EUR rather than Ruble since it’s value is going to collapse the moment Russia lifts capital controls. This arguably only increases the demand for foreign currencies.
Main categories of goods imported by Russia in 2021 were: ‘Machinery & Equipment’ and ‘Medicine’ and it’s not like Russia can just stop importing these of they want to keep their pump jacks and hospital running.
Only globalist anywhere people. Ordinary Russians keep their savings in Roubles for the same reason I keep mine in GBP - because that's where we live and where we intend to continue to live, with everything around us priced in that currency.
I don't even care what the current GBP/USD exchange rate is. Why should I? Same with Russians with Roubles.
"Main categories of goods imported by Russia in 2021 were: ‘Machinery & Equipment’ and ‘Medicine’ and it’s not like Russia can just stop importing these of they want to keep their pump jacks and hospital running."
This idea that Russia is a backwater that can't make its own stuff is very peculiar.
We've just removed the cheaper competition. Russian producers can now expand, massify and gain economies of scale.
Hence they've confiscated a load of planes which they intend to make parts for themselves. Since IP rights have been suspended in Russia for foreign goods, they can make whatever they can physically make with nobody skimming off the top.
Russia is not a banana republic where you could possibly find the direct link between the export revenues and military expenses. This is not how Russian economy works, the picture is much more complicated.
First of all, the revenue from oil and gas sales is collected in foreign currency. Russian budget receives the money in taxes paid by exporters, but these money must be converted first to rouble. The conversion rate can be regulated by the central bank through purchases and sales of the currency and they of course can print money when necessary. This means that this currency actually never reaches the recipients of the budget money and exchange rate can be adjusted to serve the needs of the economy.
Second, Russia produces nearly all of its military equipment and pays for it in rouble. There's almost no mercenaries in this conflict, it is mostly regular army, which also receives their salaries in rouble. They have very low exposure to external economic shocks and if necessary can switch to the war economy mode at the cost of the rest of Russian population.
Now, what happens if Russia stops exporting oil and gas to Europe? Just in the last year Russia collected 50% more money than it planned in the annual budget. The extra money are usually deposited in the Reserve Fund and National Wealth Fund and re-invested, but they can be used in crisis times. Basically, just in the last year Russia collected enough money to survive 6 months of oil and gas trade embargo (and this is 150% of its military budget). Let's say, some of these money are frozen on European and American bank accounts and cannot actually be used except for servicing the debt. Still plenty of these savings are still accessible. Besides that, Russian central bank can still print money to fund the war. This may result in even higher inflation, but the economic bloc of Russian government is extremely competent and can mitigate the impact on the population.
Ordinary Russian people will inevitably notice the economic downturn, but their mentality is the mentality of survival and mobilization, plus the state propaganda can justify the means very convincingly and repressive apparatus can silence those who disagree. We are talking about many years of attrition until the economic situation becomes untolerable. No sanctions in the world will force Russian people to overthrow the government in the next year or two, just like they did not work for North Korea, Venezuela or Iran.
That is incorrect. The oil and gas companies is owned by a few oligarchies with direct ties to Putin and the Russian government. Based on what secret service and other agencies has leaked, there isn't a major difference between what is the Russian government, what is controlled by Putin, and what is owned by the owners of the oligarchies. To a degree they operate just like a banana republic in this aspect, although a better comparison is likely state owned Chinese companies that get funded, instructed, operated by government personal, given benefits by their secret service, and with party representatives being directly involved in the leader structure and ownership.
And it may indeed take years before the sanctions actually hurt enough for the Russian government to start move to the peace table. American war in Afghanistan took 20 years. Iraq started in 2003 and ended in fully in 2021. Their war in Pakistan took 14 years. Yemen is still ongoing, same in Somalia, and Syria.
6 months would be comparable short, and it is not out of the question that it may take many years. The more funds they get the easier they have in continuing operations. And while Russia produces nearly all of its military equipment, just like the US does, both require a lot of imports to actually do the production. Military equipment require a lot of electronics, much which isn't produced in Russia. Machines, vehicles, technology and tools all depend on international supply chains, and the more isolated the nation is the harder and more money they need to spend on maintaining those critical imports. All while the nations population suffer from the economic downturn. At some point reserves gets low and that is when peace is best pursuit.
>That is incorrect. The oil and gas companies is owned by a few oligarchies with direct ties to Putin and the Russian government… …To a degree they operate just like a banana republic in this aspect.
This is just generic description of corruption, but you forgot to explain where I was wrong. Take, for example, Novatek - if you think its profits are funding the war, how do you think this cash reaches the army?
> Is that illegal? I wonder about rule of law. We talk about this as sacrosanct here in the "West".
Ignoring the geopolitical aspects and the “critical infrastructure” aspects: yes it’s illegal everywhere to unilaterally abrogate a contract or to use bankruptcy or such rules to evade contract.
Normally of course this would be handled through the courts, but the answer to your question is “yes”
We definitely need to get rid of our double standards. All complaints about this from non-western countries are mostly correct.
"The German economy ministry said Gazprom Germania violated foreign trade law."
"Germany's economy ministry justified the takeover by saying it had not granted permission for the Gazprom Germania acquisition. Permission is required, the ministry said, if the investors are not from the European Union and "critical infrastructure" is involved."
And that's sufficient basis for a legal system to reassign ownership of assets?
Just for debate, lets say Google search is critical infrastructure and Google unilaterally took some action that upset the German economy ministry, would the legal system enable German authorities to take over assets that Google had within Germany and/or areas still under German control?
You’d have to dig into the specifics of German law in this case, but this is really unsurprising. Sales are routinely blocked and companies nationalised (with compensation, in civilised countries, though the fraud aspect could change this in this instance).
Gazprom Germania can believe the government is wrong and take it to the courts, but the legal argument seems sound.
Police seize drugs, for example.
German ministers can implement some draconian decisions, but they are operating in a large system of checks and balances, including independent courts and required parliamentary support for passing legislation.
The two scenarios are therefore roughly as similar as the arbitrary power of the owner of a privately held firm and the constrained power of a CEO of a publicly traded company.
I'm tempted to agree. However, I did raise a specific counter-example. In that case, a "proper democracy" (Mossadegh was democratically elected and presumably used entirely legal means to nationalize APOC assets), and then the long arms (CIA, MI6) of another set of "proper democracies?" undertook a violent coup to take back the assets. I'm not aware of how/whether those "long arms" interacted with the large system of checks and balances that you mentioned.
Not making any point about your example, which was indeed despicable behaviour.
Under some circumstances if your company operates essential infrastructure, yes. (And always had been, btw.)
We can put some wishful thinking that Novatek is the exception here and has no shell companies, no tax schemes, no avoidance of sanctions, no unaccounted money flow hopping around between banks in order to avoid insight. How likely is it, and how much more likely is it that with the right access to bank records or secret service files, some investigative journalist will have a field day describing just how much money ended up in the hands of the Russian government?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Syndrome
And more recently:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_(miniseries)
Jane Fonda is a sexy grandma who still got it, she stopped the war in Vietnam and got us in shape. With our powers combined, we are Captain Planet? We were elected to lead not to read!
Here is an additional thought: if you dedicate an entire party completely and totally to solving one problem, what happens to them if the problem actually gets solved?
Seems like a single issue politician is exclusively incentivized to shift blame in order to get re-elected rather than, you know, do anything constructive.
France is something like 70%+ nuclear powered, they got it all sorted for the rest of the century. Not much for the greenie weenies to do.
(it's also been in the news recently as it was right in the middle of the Russian assault on Kyiv!)
The French nuclear mix is currently 58% : https://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/power-generation-energ... because a large number of reactors are offline: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1549986/macron-france...
There are two problems with nuclear power:
- a "black swan" low probability risk of something really bad happening, despite everyone saying it can't happen, and poisoning the surrounding area
- it's expensive, takes a long time to build, and can develop expensive problems. Many of the French reactors are approaching the end of their 50 year design life.
That said, it was definitely a mistake for Germany to close plants without a specific safety risk.
Black swan events are nothing to make light of. I mean technically there's also a "black swan" risk of a meteor destroying the earth or monkeys flying out of my butt.
I guess they aren't that good at that whole engineering thing anymore and just can't handle this as well as the French. ;)
Just like the fake "Whale conservation" group fighting wind power off Nantucket is a front.
If you want to criticize something as large as the Environmental movement, and you can't even find one real example to cite then maybe that means something.
If you can't criticize them, don't bring up people that are larping as them for their own ends.
* Greenpeace Germany has a gas division. They've now split it off and officially only own 5 shares (while being headquartered in the exact same building, by the exact same Greenpeace members): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Planet_Energy
* Companies like Total have made use of their enormous war chest to take control of multiple organisations that push wind & solar power (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/22/fossil-f...), knowing full well it cannot cover all of our energy needs and knowing they will be here to sell natural gas, continuing the use of fossil fuels.
* Anti nuclear organizations are very often bankrolled by large oil lobbies (https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-f..., https://environmentalprogress.org/the-war-on-nuclear), once again, pushing to get nuclear replaced with natural gas.
Yes.
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-get-75--of-power-from-ren...
Swiss are generally quite smart but have emotions just like everybody else, even if it may not seem so upon first encounter. From what I recall they already buy LNG mainly from US so at least this part is not so bad re current situation.
I think we shouldn't use words like "dumb" at all because we are all trying to bring about the most sensible, safe and productive energy future for our nations. These nations have different circumstances and demands and some are more influenced by corrupt individuals than others.
With regard to the Greens, what exactly is dumb? It can't be the move away from nuclear because first of all, that was decided by Merkel's CDU long ago and second, it is economically the only sensible thing to do in 2022. It's what the MARKET dictates. Capitalism at work because no one will pay for the cost of building and running a nuclear plant while renewables are already working and massively cheaper to build, run and INSURE.
I'm not even talking about technology, safety or waste disposal at all. There is no reason to even go there because today NO energy provider in their right mind will build new nuclear plants today (and they won't matter anyway because building one takes 10+ years). The decision is a result of cost and not technological misunderstanding or ignorance.
Most days, Germany already produces and consumes >50% of renewable energy and it will only accelerate: https://app.electricitymap.org/zone/DE
On the other hand, France's electricity briefly cost more than >€2900/MWh yesterday (as opposed to €101/MWh in Germany) due to their reliance on few but old nuclear plants with high safety standards which go offline quite often. France's electricity shortly was the most expensive of all time in the world yesterday.
https://old.reddit.com/r/de/comments/tw656a/zwischen_8_und_9...
Anyone who actually supports new nuclear power plants today shamefully displays their utter ignorance of the modern energy market. It is COST that is prohibitive first and foremost. It will always be a LOSS operation. The market dictates the use of distributed renewable energy, which also prevents nearly all other issues associated with nuclear. Nice side effect.
In fact, Germany's real big issues are bureaucracy and NIMBYs but thanks to the current crisis those will hopefully be solved within the next years.
Some, like this example, go a little further and try to mix in hydrogen or biogas to reduce carbon output, or offset the carbon in some way, but even when they didn't, it was still greener than the alternatives on the market and a profitable business advancing their professed agenda.
I wish nuclear fans would apply their ridiculously high standards for what they consider green energy to nuclear as well rather than just sabotage any attempt at advancing renewable energy with snide gotcha arguments.
But know that your mindless antinuclearism is going to be our downfall. Our only options for baseload generation as it stands are nuclear and gas. And by protesting nuclear, you are giving oil companies a large avenue to keep fucking us all over. Rejecting nuclear at all costs right now in an attempt to get some renewable only future is madness. It is only leading us further down the hole of global warming. The only sabotage happening here is organisations like greenpeace literally committing acts of terrorism against nuclear plants. No-one wants to go nuclear+gas.
Your mention of hydrogen makes you even more of a useful idiot for oil companies. Hydrogen does NOT work. We get 27% efficiency when it comes to storing it and using it as power. P2G2P is 50% at best. And while STEPs are a great solution for storage, we've used most of it. Unless you're looking to drown Bavaria to make a big lake.
Build a ton of nuclear plants. Move as many countries as possible away from gas and coal. Once that's done, I'm more than happy for all of us to think of alternatives for nuclear.
Yes, obviously.
German chocolate manufacturer Ritter Sport has decided to continue working in Russia. According to Ritter Sport, about 7% of its business is in the Russian market.
Money makes the world go around. You got in bed with Russia for cheap energy, which you enjoyed for a decade or two, and it cost you an increase in your defense spending and some dead Ukrainians.
Lets hope that's all it will cost you. Of course you had no choice, it is the invisible hand.
My position is not that Germany has no agency it’s that it traded away it’s much of its agency to appease the Greens.
These opinions come not from American TV but from my relatives.
Freistaat Bayern uber alles!
Sorry about taking over Europe again, hope you are enjoying the EU dictating your countries economic fortunes.
Imports of Russian gas (in billion cubic meters) as of 2020:
- Germany (42.6)
- Italy (29.2)
- Belarus (18.8)
- Turkey (16.2)
- Nertherlands (15.7)
- Hungary (11.6)
- Kazakhstan (10.2)
- Poland (9.6)
- China (9.2)
- Japan (8.8)
Oh how our East European borders have grown...
This is going to come off as agressive and whatever but I just really wish people like you that don't have any idea what they are talking about would just shut up already and stop polluting the internet with unfounded opinions.
Hydro while interesting it is awful for the environment.
Because Switzerland is dependent on like everything? The same could be said about steel, food, chips, chemicals, minerals, fertilizer, oils, gas...just about everything, yes we produce stuff but nearly nothing from the ground up, with the exception of Alp-Cheese and Buendnerfleisch ;)
>Hydro while interesting it is awful for the environment.
Switzerland then must have terrible environmental problems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Switzerland
high share of hydroelectricity (59.6%)
Their reactor in Bugey is like 200km from the one you're shutting down early.
Man.. it would sure be funny if France elected some eccentric far right character for additional excitement.
Yes why not? They take the risk, we pay them for.
>eccentric far right character for additional excitement.
Is the far right not happy making money?
> Is the far right not happy making money?
You know Mr Putin could have just stayed on the throne collecting hundreds of billions a year doing nothing. Nord Stream 2 was weeks away from being flipped on, this was boom times for Russia.
You know how small Switzerland is? One accident and whole Switzerland could be polluted at once.
>You know Mr Putin could have just stayed
Not sure how that has anything todo with a far right french politician.
>Nord Stream 2 was weeks away from being flipped on
And would have been probably flipped off, after what happened.
Well precisely. And Bugey is so close might as well be in Switzerland, heh. Atoms don't know about our imaginary lines.
> And would have been probably flipped off, after what happened.
I'm saying instead of collecting riches he opted to invade. It is a bummer but sometimes people are not rational actors, even in Europe it turns out.
> Not sure how that has anything todo with a far right french politician.
Generally far right movements have an affinity with Russia/Putin. You don't need to believe some unproven (or in some cases proven) theory about them being bankrolled by him.
Le Pen happens to have known ties but you can disregard this completely if you prefer. What I think you would find very interesting and somewhat alarming is the attitudes and political winds currently blowing even in your civilized neighbor France. Ask a French person first hand to lay it out.
It is relevant to your interests, especially now that you depend on them for energy. I know, fortress Switzerland, not used to this, but it is an important lesson to learn right now. Please don't repeat the mistakes of Germans.
200km less...that's massive for Switzerland
>Generally far right movements have an affinity with Russia/Putin.
Sorry but that's just a wannabe attempt...let's stop here, not worth my time, for example in Germany it was the left.