Russia invades Ukraine. Volume 2

[GT03ROB]

8bit said:

You're not wrong on the "wrong score" but the intention was purely about getting control of Iraq's oil, wasn't it?

Why these myths are perpetuated is beyond me.

The biggest oil operators in Iraq since the invasion are not & never have been American. Only Exxon have a meaningful presence. Check out how many Chinese & Russian companies are big operators

[8bit]

HM-2 said:

It's an opinion piece from an individual whose views on the subject are very overt, as they've been aired in multiple books.

Anyway, have a read of this, this and here. The "war for oil" myth is easily dispelled by two key factors; the fact the US essentially failed to rebuild crippled Iraqi infrastructure (resulting in huge suppression of production for a number of years after the initial invasion), and the realignment of the Iraqi government as a Shi'a Iranian puppet. If you look at the key export markets for Iraqi oil, the US makes the top five but it only represents a very small percentage compared to China (more than 35%) and India (~30%).

This is a good read- https://www.amazon.co.uk/Oil-Wars-Myth-Emily-Meier...

Thanks, I'll have a look at those this evening.

GT03ROB said:

8bit said:

You're not wrong on the "wrong score" but the intention was purely about getting control of Iraq's oil, wasn't it?

Why these myths are perpetuated is beyond me.

The biggest oil operators in Iraq since the invasion are not & never have been American. Only Exxon have a meaningful presence. Check out how many Chinese & Russian companies are big operators

I have no knowledge of any bias or leanings of this website but if this list is accurate then yes, China and Russia are there but so are a good range of notable other foreign producers: https://www.iraq-businessnews.com/list-of-internat...

Granted also there is almost no indication of production figures.

[HM-2]

8bit said:

I have no knowledge of any bias or leanings of this website but if this list is accurate then yes, China and Russia are there but so are a good range of notable other foreign producers: https://www.iraq-businessnews.com/list-of-internat...

Granted also there is almost no indication of production figures.

There's only one US producer on that list, ExxonMobil. I can only see three more "western" ones- BP, Eni and Total.

Edited by HM-2 on Wednesday 25th May 18:40

[hairykrishna]

rovermorris999 said:

There's been a lot of discussion about how the state of the Russian nuclear forces. Not too bad perhaps. According to this article, they've been upgrading heavily for the last few years (assuming the money has been spend as intended). The USA on the other hand is relying on 51 year old ICBMs (and their subs of course), presumably regularly upgraded as the design life was 10 years.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18535/russia-ch...

They've been modernising ever since the Kursk sank.

[8bit]

HM-2 said:

8bit said:

I have no knowledge of any bias or leanings of this website but if this list is accurate then yes, China and Russia are there but so are a good range of notable other foreign producers: https://www.iraq-businessnews.com/list-of-internat...

Granted also there is almost no indication of production figures.

There's only one US producer on that list, ExxonMobil.

Yes, but a number from other countries in the GW2 coalition.

[HM-2]

8bit said:

HM-2 said:

8bit said:

I have no knowledge of any bias or leanings of this website but if this list is accurate then yes, China and Russia are there but so are a good range of notable other foreign producers: https://www.iraq-businessnews.com/list-of-internat...

Granted also there is almost no indication of production figures.

There's only one US producer on that list, ExxonMobil.

Yes, but a number from other countries in the GW2 coalition.

Only two more from the actual invasion, BP and Eni. Unless the argument is that the initial Coalition invaded Iraq to give it's oil resources to Japanese and Korean oil exploration firms in return for them playing nearly nonexistent parts in the post invasion training programme, which doesn't make much sense to me.

[GT03ROB]

8bit said:

HM-2 said:

8bit said:

I have no knowledge of any bias or leanings of this website but if this list is accurate then yes, China and Russia are there but so are a good range of notable other foreign producers: https://www.iraq-businessnews.com/list-of-internat...

Granted also there is almost no indication of production figures.

There's only one US producer on that list, ExxonMobil.

Yes, but a number from other countries in the GW2 coalition.

…and the majority not! Chevron & BP had access to probably the biggest fields in West Qurna & Rumailla but it’s worth noting that both had partners in Chinese & Russian companies. I was familiar a long while back with BPs Rumailla deal & it certainly was not a one way deal, with a lot of risk for BP.

Anyhow we should leave this here as its not relevant to Ukraine, other than Russia’s invasion is also nothing to do with oil/gas. The Russians are looking at far more productive reserves overseas where they don’t need to start a war to get access to.

[CrutyRammers]

off_again said:

Short but sweet - and sums up the situation quite nicely. The slow progress with high attrition losses the Russians are taking is going to grind them down. Its easy to assume that the Ukrainians arent 'winning' at this point - and the pro-Russian media will be pushing this as much as they possibly can. But the reality is that the Ukrainians dont need to fight for each and every small town. They can make the small gains so painful, expensive and with high loss of life, that its just not a 'win' for the Russians. They become so stretched with limited combat effectiveness, a sweeping counterattack will be massively effective.

Its hard to get accurate figures about the Ukrainian losses, but they are drastically lower than the Russians. The Russians cannot keep this up for months. They are already resorting to re-enlisting 63 year old pilots and considering expanding the army age ranges up to 50. I am not seeing that there is a way out for the Russians at the moment.

The "trading land for casualties" thing is a tactic, but doesnt work if you get encircled. Equally it may be more expensive to retake the ground later, particularly if it involves crossing a river, so hanging on to strategic points may make sense.
Clearly it's not a position ukr would choose.

[BikeBikeBIke]

jtremlett said:

n many ways the most interesting thing is the last part and how many of the interviewees are afraid to say what they think. We are very fortunate that we are free to voice an opinion on pretty much anything.

A snippet from a podcast today: A polling company phoned 30,000 people to ask their opinion on the war. 26,000 put the phone down when they realized what the topic was. That's not a happy way to live IMHO.

[BikeBikeBIke]

CrutyRammers said:

The "trading land for casualties" thing is a tactic, but doesnt work if you get encircled. Equally it may be more expensive to retake the ground later, particularly if it involves crossing a river, so hanging on to strategic points may make sense.
Clearly it's not a position ukr would choose.

Russia's current gains are real. They're on the high ground and taking the low ground is relatively straightforward. They can fairly easily cut crucial supply lines now.


We just have to console ourselves that it's a relatively small area and tactical wins don't equate to strategic wins.

[hidetheelephants]

BikeBikeBIke said:

CrutyRammers said:

The "trading land for casualties" thing is a tactic, but doesnt work if you get encircled. Equally it may be more expensive to retake the ground later, particularly if it involves crossing a river, so hanging on to strategic points may make sense.
Clearly it's not a position ukr would choose.

Russia's current gains are real. They're on the high ground and taking the low ground is relatively straightforward. They can fairly easily cut crucial supply lines now.


We just have to console ourselves that it's a relatively small area and tactical wins don't equate to strategic wins.

It's really not; further advance will be as much of a meatgrinder as it has been so far, if not more so because advancing on prepared defences where there's overwatch is a good way to die. The primary advantage the russians hold is weight of numbers, particularly artillery, and they will no doubt pound ukrainian positions but this is not going to be their breakthrough.

[BikeBikeBIke]

hidetheelephants said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

CrutyRammers said:

The "trading land for casualties" thing is a tactic, but doesnt work if you get encircled. Equally it may be more expensive to retake the ground later, particularly if it involves crossing a river, so hanging on to strategic points may make sense.
Clearly it's not a position ukr would choose.

Russia's current gains are real. They're on the high ground and taking the low ground is relatively straightforward. They can fairly easily cut crucial supply lines now.


We just have to console ourselves that it's a relatively small area and tactical wins don't equate to strategic wins.

It's really not; further advance will be as much of a meatgrinder as it has been so far, if not more so because advancing on prepared defences where there's overwatch is a good way to die. The primary advantage the russians hold is weight of numbers, particularly artillery, and they will no doubt pound ukrainian positions but this is not going to be their breakthrough.

I'm not saying there will be a breakthrough. Absolutely not. I'm saying once you have the hills the nearby valleys are fairly straightforward. (Check out "Speak the Truth's" latest Vid with topography.)

[anonymous-user]

vonuber said:

For some reason it seems like the anti-German sentiment is higher than anti-Russian on here.

My total contempt for Russia is such that I think good riddance when their soldiers are killed. Germany are friends and allies who have made a few idiotic and arrogant strategic choices that have backfired weakening 'our' position. There's simply no equivalence at all.

[rxe]

BikeBikeBIke said:

Nonsense.

Putin wants the West to bicker and become disunited. This mentality is part of his plan.

Germany are over committed to Russian energy. In 15 years time they will be significantly less so. There's no tolerable way for them to stop imports overnight and that goes for many European Countries. Maybe none of us will ever get to zero, but even a 50pc reduction will stop us being blackmailed in future.

We are all on the same side and *must* remain so.

Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Wednesday 25th May 16:03

It isn’t nonsense. They’re deferred pretty much every possible action. Schultz is just hoping someone (anyone) wins and they can go back to normality, preferably opening Nordstream 2 at the same time. If there was a sniff of a settlement that allowed sanctions to be lifted he’s be all over it like a rat up a drainpipe. The only thing forcing him to act a noisy segment of his electorate.

[MOTORVATOR]

fblm said:

vonuber said:

For some reason it seems like the anti-German sentiment is higher than anti-Russian on here.

My total contempt for Russia is such that I think good riddance when their soldiers are killed. Germany are friends and allies who have made a few idiotic and arrogant strategic choices that have backfired weakening 'our' position. There's simply no equivalence at all.

Bearing in mind Germany's reunification happened at the same time as Ukraine was afforded their freedom from Soviet rule they have managed yet again to display a total lack of sentience. Germany 'should' have been one of the most vocal and vociferous in defending Ukraines sovereignty. They have not only disgraced themselves by not being in there from the off but also shown that Germany to this day will only ever do what benefits Germany unless you put one of their arms up their back.

[Arnold Cunningham]

I’ll tell Markus you said “hi”

[MOTORVATOR]

Arnold Cunningham said:

I’ll tell Markus you said “hi”

[BikeBikeBIke]

More welcome hopium:


https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-25/russian-arm...

[faa77]

BikeBikeBIke said:

rxe said:

The Germans are way better than that. All they’ve done is outsource fascism. They used to do it themselves, and just like call centres, they’ve found it easier to pay someone else to do it. .

Nonsense.

Putin wants the West to bicker and become disunited. This mentality is part of his plan.

Germany are over committed to Russian energy. In 15 years time they will be significantly less so. There's no tolerable way for them to stop imports overnight and that goes for many European Countries. Maybe none of us will ever get to zero, but even a 50pc reduction will stop us being blackmailed in future.

We are all on the same side and *must* remain so.

Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Wednesday 25th May 16:03

I thought they could get their nuclear power plants back up within 6-12 months?

[faa77]

Olivera said:

https://energybulletin.org/peak-oil-reference/peak...

2003 oil production, in million barrels per day:

United States 5.68
Iraq 1.31
Total, OPEC plus top 30 non-OPEC 72.66

Anyone who thinks Iraq was primarily about oil needs to lay down the crack pipe. The primary motivation was always neoconservative 'regime change' ideology.

Surely daily production has nothing to do with reserves?