Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Off-Topic > Off-Topic > International affairs/politics  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 08.06.2021, 16:23
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Vaud
Posts: 1,437
Groaned at 113 Times in 73 Posts
Thanked 1,556 Times in 888 Posts
yacek has a reputation beyond reputeyacek has a reputation beyond reputeyacek has a reputation beyond reputeyacek has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Nordstream 2

Nice environmental bullshit in this thread, so without any further BS, why an undersea pipeline instead of an overland one and if Germany is aligned geopolitically with Russia here?

And who would think J.Biden would achieve what Trump, supposedly elected with Russian help, could not?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08.06.2021, 16:32
komsomolez's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SZ
Posts: 1,670
Groaned at 81 Times in 56 Posts
Thanked 3,106 Times in 1,216 Posts
komsomolez has a reputation beyond reputekomsomolez has a reputation beyond reputekomsomolez has a reputation beyond reputekomsomolez has a reputation beyond reputekomsomolez has a reputation beyond reputekomsomolez has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Nordstream 2

Europe will need to import gas. Pipelines are much better in terms of security of supply than ships as they also lock in the seller. Gazprom pays for infrastructure essentially and sells the gas. I see no issue. If the Polish are annoyed, so be it. They can and do buy their gas elsewhere.

Yes, hydrogen might be a part of the solution in the longer run. Can be produced locally and ideally in big industrial clusters with proximity to offshore wind. Can also be mixed into the gas grid in limited form.

Buying hydrogen from Russia will never happen unless produced with carbon capture.

Biden admin admitted that Nordstream is a fait accompli. Wise not to push more. It is the decision of European countries and companies.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08.06.2021, 16:50
Phil_MCR's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Basel
Posts: 14,388
Groaned at 279 Times in 185 Posts
Thanked 18,012 Times in 7,577 Posts
Phil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Nordstream 2

Quote:
View Post
why an undersea pipeline instead of an overland one
presumably to avoid falling under the control of multiple countries and being subject to taxes/transit costs in those countries.

Last edited by Phil_MCR; 08.06.2021 at 17:07.
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank Phil_MCR for this useful post:
  #24  
Old 08.06.2021, 17:03
komsomolez's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SZ
Posts: 1,670
Groaned at 81 Times in 56 Posts
Thanked 3,106 Times in 1,216 Posts
komsomolez has a reputation beyond reputekomsomolez has a reputation beyond reputekomsomolez has a reputation beyond reputekomsomolez has a reputation beyond reputekomsomolez has a reputation beyond reputekomsomolez has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Nordstream 2

Quote:
View Post
presumably to avoid falling under the control of multiple countries and being subject to taxes/costs in those countries.
And to undermine Ukraine politically and economically. From a European supply security perspective, it is preferable not having pipelines running through a potential conflict or war zone.
Reply With Quote
This user groans at komsomolez for this post:
  #25  
Old 08.06.2021, 17:09
Phil_MCR's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Basel
Posts: 14,388
Groaned at 279 Times in 185 Posts
Thanked 18,012 Times in 7,577 Posts
Phil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Nordstream 2

Quote:
View Post
Biden admin admitted that Nordstream is a fait accompli. Wise not to push more. It is the decision of European countries and companies.
yup. it could only ever be delayed. the US burned up a lot of political capital on that delay. not sure it was worth it for them.

plus it makes them look weak. they tried to stop it and now failed.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08.06.2021, 17:17
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Vaud
Posts: 1,437
Groaned at 113 Times in 73 Posts
Thanked 1,556 Times in 888 Posts
yacek has a reputation beyond reputeyacek has a reputation beyond reputeyacek has a reputation beyond reputeyacek has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Nordstream 2

Quote:
View Post
And to undermine Ukraine politically and economically. From a European supply security perspective, it is preferable not having pipelines running through a potential conflict or war zone.
So, Germany is supporting Russia's agenda in Ukraine.
The next time they ask Eastern European countries to take refugees they can ship them directly overseas to Russia.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank yacek for this useful post:
  #27  
Old 08.06.2021, 17:46
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Baden
Posts: 121
Groaned at 17 Times in 10 Posts
Thanked 93 Times in 59 Posts
scrabblegrey has become a little unpopularscrabblegrey has become a little unpopular
Re: Nordstream 2

Quote:
View Post
why an undersea pipeline instead of an overland one
Because it already exist since decades:



If you were not obfuscated by your BSrightness, you would know that.

Quote:
View Post
without any further BS,
funny how immediately follows up a BS question (BS is the attitude, not the question)
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users groan at scrabblegrey for this post:
  #28  
Old 08.06.2021, 18:00
komsomolez's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SZ
Posts: 1,670
Groaned at 81 Times in 56 Posts
Thanked 3,106 Times in 1,216 Posts
komsomolez has a reputation beyond reputekomsomolez has a reputation beyond reputekomsomolez has a reputation beyond reputekomsomolez has a reputation beyond reputekomsomolez has a reputation beyond reputekomsomolez has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Nordstream 2

Quote:
View Post
So, Germany is supporting Russia's agenda in Ukraine.
The next time they ask Eastern European countries to take refugees they can ship them directly overseas to Russia.
Russia and Ukraine had 25 years to figure out the gas transit issue. They didn't, and actually supply security decreased including the period in Jan 2009 (?) when no more gas was reaching the EU from Ukraine. Why should Germany or other countries subject themselves to such uncertainty when they can have the Russians paying for a shiny subsea pipeline?

Not quite sure how many refugees UA has taken or what this has to do with Nordstream.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08.06.2021, 18:05
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Olten
Posts: 559
Groaned at 60 Times in 47 Posts
Thanked 448 Times in 268 Posts
hoover1 has earned the respect of manyhoover1 has earned the respect of manyhoover1 has earned the respect of many
Re: Nordstream 2

during cold war - russia was seling gas to "west" and nobody complained .. traded by Swiss

I am against seabed pipeline however europe hasn't learned to live without and in fact phasing out atom - is just door opened for russian gas.

Russia attempted for years to underline economy of ex-orbital countries of eastern block that were "liberated" in Yalta .

Gas was used as one of the elements - however once Ukraina stopped paying for used gas while not agreeing of higher prices than rest of the world ( and raising transit fees in exchange to balance the scale ) - Russia decided build all over the land.

Not long after when NS1 was ready - Russia didnt care anymore about deliver impact to the west europe over Ukraine closing down gas flow - and annexed Crimea & Dombas war started.

Without Nord Stream - there would have been no war as that was 'nuclear option' of Ukraine and Poland to stop russia expantion - however West carried all about their own business only and any "delay" in gas delivery was seen as not acceptable while stability of Ukraine was secondary to Germany's needs.

That is political fact and that's where all the large superpowers recognised too late.
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank hoover1 for this useful post:
This user groans at hoover1 for this post:
  #30  
Old 08.06.2021, 18:07
Treverus's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Work in ZH, live in SZ
Posts: 11,950
Groaned at 305 Times in 261 Posts
Thanked 22,751 Times in 8,239 Posts
Treverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Nordstream 2

Quote:
View Post
Russia and Ukraine had 25 years to figure out the gas transit issue. They didn't, and actually supply security decreased including the period in Jan 2009 (?) when no more gas was reaching the EU from Ukraine. Why should Germany or other countries subject themselves to such uncertainty when they can have the Russians paying for a shiny subsea pipeline?

Not quite sure how many refugees UA has taken or what this has to do with Nordstream.
Exactly. And with the second pipeline did Germany essentially finance the Belarusian regime for the past decades... I can see how the Baltic countries are worried, the Polish are just deeply paranoid when Russia and Germany are involved. As a result do they buy in all the US crap from a missive shield to a fracking gas terminal...
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Treverus for this useful post:
  #31  
Old 08.06.2021, 18:21
komsomolez's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SZ
Posts: 1,670
Groaned at 81 Times in 56 Posts
Thanked 3,106 Times in 1,216 Posts
komsomolez has a reputation beyond reputekomsomolez has a reputation beyond reputekomsomolez has a reputation beyond reputekomsomolez has a reputation beyond reputekomsomolez has a reputation beyond reputekomsomolez has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Nordstream 2

Why is it always Germany? The pipeline reaches German shores, yes, but much of the gas transits to other countries. It even flows back to Poland and Ukraine.

And no, the Swiss did not trade Russian gas in the cold war, it was imported by the large energy companies of Germany, France, Italy. Actually the Germans resold parts of their Russian gas to Switzerland, not the other way around.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08.06.2021, 18:28
Treverus's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Work in ZH, live in SZ
Posts: 11,950
Groaned at 305 Times in 261 Posts
Thanked 22,751 Times in 8,239 Posts
Treverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Nordstream 2

Quote:
View Post
Why is it always Germany? The pipeline reaches German shores, yes, but much of the gas transits to other countries. It even flows back to Poland and Ukraine.

And no, the Swiss did not trade Russian gas in the cold war, it was imported by the large energy companies of Germany, France, Italy. Actually the Germans resold parts of their Russian gas to Switzerland, not the other way around.
Historically was it Germany that opened the gas trade with the Soviet Union. The others followed.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08.06.2021, 18:30
komsomolez's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SZ
Posts: 1,670
Groaned at 81 Times in 56 Posts
Thanked 3,106 Times in 1,216 Posts
komsomolez has a reputation beyond reputekomsomolez has a reputation beyond reputekomsomolez has a reputation beyond reputekomsomolez has a reputation beyond reputekomsomolez has a reputation beyond reputekomsomolez has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Nordstream 2

Quote:
View Post
Historically was it Germany that opened the gas trade with the Soviet Union. The others followed.
Which has nothing to do with any of the arguments how allegedly Germany is the sole supporter / benefactor of Nord Stream and/or "financing the regime in Belarus".

In fact, it was Austria who signed the first gas contract as a Western country with the USSR.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08.06.2021, 18:33
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Olten
Posts: 559
Groaned at 60 Times in 47 Posts
Thanked 448 Times in 268 Posts
hoover1 has earned the respect of manyhoover1 has earned the respect of manyhoover1 has earned the respect of many
Re: Nordstream 2

Quote:
View Post
Why is it always Germany? The pipeline reaches German shores, yes, but much of the gas transits to other countries.
I guess that lesson comes from history - check on Helmut Schmidt

also ex german canceller Schroderer leading Russia gas project leaves a room for imagination how 'close' the relationships are on political levels
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank hoover1 for this useful post:
  #35  
Old 08.06.2021, 18:35
Treverus's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Work in ZH, live in SZ
Posts: 11,950
Groaned at 305 Times in 261 Posts
Thanked 22,751 Times in 8,239 Posts
Treverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Nordstream 2

Quote:
View Post
Which has nothing to do with any of the arguments how allegedly Germany is the sole supporter / benefactor of Nord Stream and/or "financing the regime in Belarus".
Of course not, but it is really convenient for the other EU countries to hide behind. Thats what they did back then and thats what they do now. Back then were the US not very happy about it and clearly isnt happy now. If you see how far certain GOP senators are willing to push this can you understand why the other countries like to lie low. https://www.businessinsider.com/gop-...20-8?r=US&IR=T

For Germany, especially with the decision to pull out of both coal AND nuclear energy at the same time, is this pipeline an essential project of national security. For the others less so.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Treverus for this useful post:
  #36  
Old 08.06.2021, 18:40
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Olten
Posts: 559
Groaned at 60 Times in 47 Posts
Thanked 448 Times in 268 Posts
hoover1 has earned the respect of manyhoover1 has earned the respect of manyhoover1 has earned the respect of many
Re: Nordstream 2

Quote:
View Post

For Germany, especially with the decision to pull out of both coal AND nuclear energy at the same time, is this pipeline an essential project of national security. For the others less so.


follow the money
- who was largest sponsor of anti-nuclear lobby in Germany
- who makes major profits on gas via NS
- who makes major political capitalisation on gas via NS ?

let me help you ...

"FACTSHEET

Nuclear phase-out – opting out and back in again

After the Social Democrats (SPD) and the Green Party won the elections in 1998, the government of Gerhard Schroeder (SPD) reached what became known as the “nuclear consensus” with the big utilities. They agreed to limit the lifespan of nuclear power stations to 32 years"

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/fact...lear-phase-out

What a coincidence it's very same Gerhard Schroeder that runs NordStream for Putin regime - who might have thought so ?

BORAT would
Attached Images
 

Last edited by hoover1; 08.06.2021 at 20:33. Reason: added comment/link
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank hoover1 for this useful post:
  #37  
Old 08.06.2021, 19:01
Treverus's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Work in ZH, live in SZ
Posts: 11,950
Groaned at 305 Times in 261 Posts
Thanked 22,751 Times in 8,239 Posts
Treverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Nordstream 2

Quote:
View Post
follow the money
- who was largest sponsor of anti-nuclear lobby in Germany
- who makes major profits on gas via NS
- who makes major political capitalisation on gas via NS ?

let me help you ...

"FACTSHEET

Nuclear phase-out – opting out and back in again

After the Social Democrats (SPD) and the Green Party won the elections in 1998, the government of Gerhard Schroeder (SPD) reached what became known as the “nuclear consensus” with the big utilities. They agreed to limit the lifespan of nuclear power stations to 32 years"
Let me help you: The exit from nuclear energy was decided by Merkel, CDU, long after Schröder. It was a direct reaction to the Fukushima incident. There is not one party making political capitalisation: the Greens wanted it since the 80s, the SPD and CDU can now claim that they were the ones putting it in place. The post communists are anyways for anything pro-Russia which leaves us with the liberals (who only worried about the costs - not for the consumers, but to make sure the energy companies got billions for their reactors). The AFD did not exist back then but are usually against America and interestingly very pro-Russian as well... so that is probably the only topic where the entire political spectrum agreed on something.

I personally dont agree with it and believe that Merkel did it as a preemptive strike to stop the greens from getting more votes on that topic... but its certainly not "the SPD is bought by Russia"...
Reply With Quote
This user groans at Treverus for this post:
  #38  
Old 08.06.2021, 19:21
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Olten
Posts: 559
Groaned at 60 Times in 47 Posts
Thanked 448 Times in 268 Posts
hoover1 has earned the respect of manyhoover1 has earned the respect of manyhoover1 has earned the respect of many
Re: Nordstream 2

Quote:
View Post
Let me help you: The exit from nuclear energy was decided by Merkel, CDU, long after Schröder.

...

why not to click a link ?

No, plan and realisation of it was there for two decades.

Merkel just ran out of arguments to "prolongate" the exist with Fokushima incident.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank hoover1 for this useful post:
  #39  
Old 08.06.2021, 19:27
XDr's Avatar
XDr XDr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: Northeast
Posts: 101
Groaned at 4 Times in 4 Posts
Thanked 103 Times in 57 Posts
XDr is considered knowledgeableXDr is considered knowledgeableXDr is considered knowledgeable
Re: Nordstream 2

Relax. Even when both pipes are completed (only one is close to complete now), Nordstream 2 will add barely 15% to the Russian export capacity to Europe, and otherwise Russia had now developed the infrastructure including icebreakers to deliver large quantities of LNG. Besides, Asia needs gas badly. Russia would have been fine either way, though letting the US bully Europe should bother them, although of course it should bother Western Europe even more so (sanctions against a German mayor and ministry ). The gas transit and fees through Poland and Ukraine are still secure, though more options will help make the system more robust and avoid the deadly winter shortages that were otherwise increasingly likely to happen in the East.



Germany, in particular, needs the extra capacity and supply safety. So does Switzerland and much of Western Europe, all the more as the North Sea is declining. The US could not care less about that, to the opposite in fact. Higher energy costs for Europe simply make these economies less competitive, offer more markets and firms for US firms to target, and generally makes Europe more pliant. Even the excuse of selling fracked US LNG instead is thin (not a durable or sustainable source, not price competitive without the subsidies and tax breaks).


What POd the Americans with NS 2 is that they could not pull off a repeat of the South Stream gambit (dashed line in the map in the post above). While temporarily killing South Stream, the US got to put offensive nuke-capable missile systems in Romania (aka, supposedly, antimissile capacity against NK ); close a path for Russian but also Central Asian exports; and leave the market open for US "partners" in the Middle East, especially Qatar and eventually Israel (all the more if Israel also manages to get its hand on the contested part of the Lebanese continental shelf). For the Arab autocracies, that required passage through Syria, hence all these parties inflaming the war when Assad did not play along. An extra prize for the US, and reason to occupy Eastern Syria indefinitely, is to prevent Iran from building export capacity via the same route. Turkey played it smart with Blue Stream, and even Bulgaria is now enabling the transit onwards to Bosnia, effectively recreating South Stream.


So really NS 2 is a plus for Western Europe; largely irrelevant to Eastern Europe; possibly allowing a plus for Southern Europe; a minor plus and symbolic achievement for Russia; and the US will just shrug it off and look for other ways to control its "allies"'' energy supply and build a cordon around Russia. Getting four bases in Norway is a big next step, already in the bag for them.


There are minor losers in Switzerland: Allseas, and Zurich Insurance. Caving in instantly to US threats when others did not is a blemish on these companies, if not on the country.

Last edited by XDr; 08.06.2021 at 19:48. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote
The following 4 users would like to thank XDr for this useful post:
This user groans at XDr for this post:
  #40  
Old 08.06.2021, 19:37
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Olten
Posts: 559
Groaned at 60 Times in 47 Posts
Thanked 448 Times in 268 Posts
hoover1 has earned the respect of manyhoover1 has earned the respect of manyhoover1 has earned the respect of many
Re: Nordstream 2

Quote:
View Post

So really NS 2 is a plus for Western Europe; largely irrelevant to Eastern Europe; possibly allowing a plus for Southern Europe; a minor plus and symbolic achievement for Russia; and the US will just shrug it off and look for other ways to control its "allies"'' energy supply and build a cordon around Russia. Getting four bases in Norway is a big next step, already in the bag for them.

.
I agree with you here - now it has some political value - NS2 isn't thread , while seems some politics just bash on it while they missed NS1 from seeing what it was - looking for absolution now.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank hoover1 for this useful post:
Reply




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 10:55.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0