1990s called. They wanted to remind you that this is exactly what happened when Yeltsin got re-elected. It's not even contentious. Aid offered was direct and in no way hidden, because West had a massive interests in preventing the Communist party leader from taking the presidency.
The funniest part about your idiotic rant is that the list of "beliefs and approved things" is that essentially all nations that aren't gone today believe in most of those values, because those values have nothing to do with values. They have to do with being a successful nation.
So I guess I stand corrected. Even Lenin is a nazi to you, because Lenin built a more or less a successful state.
It's gizmodo. The them, "nazis" mean people politically to the right of Marx and Lenin. I suspect that NASA scientists, being normal people and not batshit insane far leftists do indeed fall into that category.
I've heard of all of them. None of them materialized as meaningful so far, and where they have materialized, economic realities suggest that lines will fall far behind what was being promised, both in terms of volume and profitability.
You can keep skirting around this particular issue as much as you want, but anyone who worked on Russian market knows that big promises and little deliveries on major projects are a norm. Gasprom isn't different here. Which is why so many companies get burned badly on that market, as they assume that big promises and great looking brochures will be actually followed on in full, as if they're operating in Western Europe or US.
There were many things that were done decade past that aren't relevant any more. Shocking, I know.
As for the rest, you appear to be missing the entire current trend, where "economic convergence" resulted in economic divergence of massive proportions. Infrastructure is being relocated from surrounding states to Germany at breakneck pace by standards of such movement. Movement of young people of these nations is following suit.
Anyway, I think we're done here. You're clearly here to sell me an idea assuming my ignorance on the topic. My inside knowledge on the topic largely inoculates me against such grand salesman proclamations. The whole "but we're going to sell to Asia" narrative has been the favourite Gazprom idea since it's predecessors, for at least half a century if not more. It has never materialized, and is unlikely to ever materialize. Not only are Russian elites simply too burned on the whole Asian connection over decades and culturally highly inclined toward European direction instead, but Asian states are far poorer and as a result drive a far harder bargain on pricing. Not to even mention the geopolitical instability of the region.
Which is why all those best laid plans, major promises, and grand proclamations, which were far greater than your proclamations and came from much more authoritative sources never materialized into any kind of meaningful results.
After you ran out of arguments, you first attempted deflection towards an irrelevant detail, then you tried to pretend that point that was already debunked wasn't. And now that you got called on your trolling, you're desperately trying to proclaim victimhood.
Here's an advice for you. You're awful at trolling beyond the "no u" arguments. I saw through you in two posts. A half a decent troll would at least be able to string together five-seven deflectionary posts to keep me interested in the narratives. Trolling at higher level just isn't for you. Stick to "no u".
Considering your name and posting history, you're not just a fan. You're a full blown astroturfer, and the only question I have if you're doing this as a hobby or a paid assignment. Content of this post proves it, as even the points of stability, original release has been by far the most stable. Even the first update literally broke a whole bunch of software, to the point where microsoft themselves recommended "running in win7 compatibility mode if you experience stability issues". It has gotten only worse since, to the point where after snafu #3 or so, I just ripped the update process out of the only laptop I have running win10 entirely after re-imaging it. If it ever gets pwned, I'll just re-image it back.
Of which "new hardware support" was achieved by literally forcing OEMs and hardware designers into not releasing win7 drivers. They even strong armed intel itself into not releasing full support for win7 on its most modern CPUs.
First point is superbly irrelevant, as Norway and Scotland are tightly integrated into the common market for cabrohydrates and have been before EU because what it is today. Netherlands is irrelevant, as most of their gas was for domestic production for a tiny nation for quite a while. Even if they were to fully switch to Russia supplies, additional consumption would be tiny.
On Nord Stream 1, note that not only is there still available capacity even in the numbers you quote, just as I noted, but Gazprom has already conceded that it will provide guarantees to current transit partners in exchange for required permits that gas transit over middle men like Poland will not suffer a massive reduction from Nord Stream 2. Ramp up of capacity you're talking about has been driven mostly by shift of transit from onshore transit routes, and utilized as a pressure tool on Eastern Europe.
That's where the political opposition to Nord Stream 2 came from. Should Nord Stream 2 be actually operated at any significant capacity, there may be severe political upheaval on EU level as middle men would lose their ability to extract significant monetary compensations from Germany for their economies. Considering the way Germany has hollowed out much of infrastructure across Eastern Europe as EU economic integration proceeded, we're looking at significant risks from it being fully operational.
As for LNG, I have some serious misgivings of suggesting that Russia has the capacity or ability to just suddenly leapfrog a supplier like US, for whom gas is effectively free by-product of shale, and who has the best maritime supply system and best ocean access of any country on the planet due to its geography. It frankly has all the same "big promise, little delivery" that anyone who has worked on Russian market knowns to be the core principle of its functionality.
I would argue that if you want to make a point of "Russia as the future of natgas on EU territory", a far more important factor would be the current trend in Syria effectively blocking Qatar from being able to pipe its gas to European continent entirely, and making it very hard for Israel to do so with its own offshore gas.
Enterprises get the enterprise version, which removes almost all of the "hot, new, amazing" technology and cedes control of the OS to the admin to make for an actually reliable OS.
Other users are stuck with home and pro versions which are the worst MS operating system since... I have problems finishing this sentence, as I had better luck even with ME.
How would that stop them from spinning off such efforts to third world locations in separate corporate entities? How would that stop massive companies who primarily work in other states who practice the same thing from delivering such a service just like the spying on one's own citizenry is delegated to other allies according to Snowden's revelations?
This is not a genie that can be put back into the bottle by a single nation, no matter how powerful.
My understanding is that North Sea gas is fine for decades, which is about as much as anyone searches for today. Considering the need for alternative sources, Norway and Scotland will have plenty of resources for new wells even if they are uneconomical in the immediate pricing situation. EU grants will come very quickly should they be needed.
Nord Stream 2 isn't needed in any meaningful way right now on merits of "today", as Nord Stream 1 is underutilized. There's still plenty of capacity there. It's about future proofing and slowly and surely bypassing the middle men in Eastern Europe, some of whom are extremely opposed to Russia because of their geopolitical interests. In this regard, both Russia and Germany are very interested in Nord Stream 2, as it ensures that when Ukrainian cronies decide to grab the German money for gas and keep it on 3 month accounts in Swiss banks to accrue interest to steal, Russia won't have to cut gas due to lack of payment for months on end. Not to even mention the lesser problem of gas stealing, that is completely normal and accepted in those parts.
As for US supplying gas, most of the shale producers have wells for "30 years of production". Why not more? Because they would have to disclose this if it was so, which automatically makes them target for hostile takeover. Natgas is the by-product of shale, that is getting increasingly captured instead of flared. So US has supplies for at least 30 years, and realistically for far longer period of time. The problem here is costs, because energy expenditures to compress the gas into liquid and transport it are just too high compared to piped gas. You're looking at about 50% price increase for someone like Germany.
The centrists in Republican party are in control. Did you forget who Trump was just a few years ago?
He is the one who had republicans cheer for gay rights, and put on a judge that was attacked by democrats for every imagined sin they could falsely accuse him of. Even after going through massive public character assassination attempt that almost cost him everything, he still sided with them on principle in upholding Roe v. Wade.
The evidence is there if you stop turning away from it because of your TDS. Centrists are in control of republican party, and Trump's primary role was dragging them to centrist positions, kicking and screaming. It's why democratic party made its massive lurch to far left. To oppose Trump in everything and #resist, the only way to go was to the far end of left ideologically. It's why they flipped in a matter of a month on border security and support for war in Syria when Trump basically adopted something close to their positions on both points. It's no longer about the principles. It's about opposition to the character of Trump, no matter what position he takes.
That's why if rational centrists were to take back control in democratic party, they would have an easy time with Trump. When it comes to principles, they agree on most things. The only major complaints centrists have are about the public persona of Trump. And a rational human being should be able to overcome their feelings when their rational interests dictate otherwise. At least when they're that high on ladder of governmental authority.
Except that, of course, his story was "European governments backing Nord Stream pipeline". Which is a very select few of European countries who stand to benefit from removal of middle men in Eastern Europe both in terms of supply security and costs.
Whereas you chose to talk about "money flows from Europe to Russia" which is a completely different set of countries. Essentially, you're talking about a completely different "Europe".
What "Europe" are you referring to? The German interests? Spanish? Polish? Estonian? Ukrainian? Russian?
If you want to complain about specifics, then be specific. Interests in Europe are widely divergent, and your statement about "Europe" is patently false on the face of it, as much of Europe has a grand total of zero dependency on Russian gas, while some has a lot.
Essentially all of the most used sites on the internet have massive interest in serving ads and tracking. Should any browser that actually breaks those two things appear and gain significant market share, its functionality WILL be slowly but increasingly broken on those sites to get people to switch from it to browsers that conform to advertisers' and information brokers' needs.
Even Mozilla, the purported champion of free web is financed almost wholly by various search engines world wide, and depending on installation location, will set different search engines. That means it's in Mozilla's direct interest to not help users with blocking things like tracking and ad serving by these search engines to make such partnerships as lucrative as possible.
So what is the business model that would work that can work both against the interests mentioned in the second paragraph and the third one?
The problem with your example is that such hypothetical agency was likely formed in a response of a long term trend causing some kind of a severe disaster due to long term growth of animal population.
Stoppage of such agency would not result in short term losses, but it may lead to economic disaster in half a decade. Because in many fields, government is the last line of defence acting when short term thinking corporations fail. Be it handling an oil spill, damage to overall farming output due to wrong kind of short term benefit long term catastrophic fertilization methodology and chemistry, or national defence.
Which brings us to difference between the government and corporation, and one of the few of Trump's actual (as opposed to those numerous imagined by sufferers of TDS) flaws. He has problems segregating "government functions that cannot be carried on like a corporation because of government being the last line of defence with no backup" and "government functions that are not the last line of defence, and where government's role can be at least to a significant extent picked up by private sector". We've seen this in many of his moves where he has treated government like a CEO treats a company. National government by design needs to take in account the long term effects of its polities, because the scenario of breakdown of government is nothing like a corporate bankruptcy. In case of corporate bankruptcy, government steps in with everything from its judiciary to its executive to manage this failure. When government breaks down, there is nothing above it to do the same. Society itself, and everything within it will collapse should this occur, and it will take a long time and a lot of damage for next governing body to re-emerge from anarchy that follows such events in human history, often with state borders themselves getting altered dramatically by such an event.
So in this regard, this is a dangerous game. Both for Trump and his ever increasingly hysterical opposition which is now engaging is absurd accusations which appear to mostly be "we agree with your views on border security, but because we must be seen in disagreement with you due to our audience largely suffering from TDS, we'll just alter our position to one that of diametric opposite of views we had just a month ago". At this point, given this rapid turnaround on both this issue and "pull the troops out of wars = bad" swing that happened effectively overnight, it's very difficult to see the current political events as those that are occurring between two rational actors invested in the future of their state. All while Trump clearly indicates that his primary interest is the future of the state with his actions.
It's going to be interesting to see how this unfolds, and if the more sane centrists can take control back within the democratic party to return to some kind of politics of the principles and actually be able to agree with Trump on points that were theirs just a few months ago, such as importance of having secure borders or that having soldiers participating in undeclared wars is bad.
Slashdot Mirror
1990s called. They wanted to remind you that this is exactly what happened when Yeltsin got re-elected. It's not even contentious. Aid offered was direct and in no way hidden, because West had a massive interests in preventing the Communist party leader from taking the presidency.
Most spies are in fact pawns of spymasters. Always have been.
Still alone, aren't you? Just like on New Years?
The funniest part about your idiotic rant is that the list of "beliefs and approved things" is that essentially all nations that aren't gone today believe in most of those values, because those values have nothing to do with values. They have to do with being a successful nation.
So I guess I stand corrected. Even Lenin is a nazi to you, because Lenin built a more or less a successful state.
It's gizmodo. The them, "nazis" mean people politically to the right of Marx and Lenin. I suspect that NASA scientists, being normal people and not batshit insane far leftists do indeed fall into that category.
I'd ask you how weather is in St. Petersburg, but I can just look it up. It's awful, just like you are at trolling.
I've heard of all of them. None of them materialized as meaningful so far, and where they have materialized, economic realities suggest that lines will fall far behind what was being promised, both in terms of volume and profitability.
You can keep skirting around this particular issue as much as you want, but anyone who worked on Russian market knows that big promises and little deliveries on major projects are a norm. Gasprom isn't different here. Which is why so many companies get burned badly on that market, as they assume that big promises and great looking brochures will be actually followed on in full, as if they're operating in Western Europe or US.
There were many things that were done decade past that aren't relevant any more. Shocking, I know.
As for the rest, you appear to be missing the entire current trend, where "economic convergence" resulted in economic divergence of massive proportions. Infrastructure is being relocated from surrounding states to Germany at breakneck pace by standards of such movement. Movement of young people of these nations is following suit.
Anyway, I think we're done here. You're clearly here to sell me an idea assuming my ignorance on the topic. My inside knowledge on the topic largely inoculates me against such grand salesman proclamations. The whole "but we're going to sell to Asia" narrative has been the favourite Gazprom idea since it's predecessors, for at least half a century if not more. It has never materialized, and is unlikely to ever materialize. Not only are Russian elites simply too burned on the whole Asian connection over decades and culturally highly inclined toward European direction instead, but Asian states are far poorer and as a result drive a far harder bargain on pricing. Not to even mention the geopolitical instability of the region.
Which is why all those best laid plans, major promises, and grand proclamations, which were far greater than your proclamations and came from much more authoritative sources never materialized into any kind of meaningful results.
Your solution to the legal problem is to fund foreign crime.
This would result in massive retaliation from forces that will have far more resources dedicated to this retaliation.
After you ran out of arguments, you first attempted deflection towards an irrelevant detail, then you tried to pretend that point that was already debunked wasn't. And now that you got called on your trolling, you're desperately trying to proclaim victimhood.
Here's an advice for you. You're awful at trolling beyond the "no u" arguments. I saw through you in two posts. A half a decent troll would at least be able to string together five-seven deflectionary posts to keep me interested in the narratives. Trolling at higher level just isn't for you. Stick to "no u".
Considering your name and posting history, you're not just a fan. You're a full blown astroturfer, and the only question I have if you're doing this as a hobby or a paid assignment. Content of this post proves it, as even the points of stability, original release has been by far the most stable. Even the first update literally broke a whole bunch of software, to the point where microsoft themselves recommended "running in win7 compatibility mode if you experience stability issues". It has gotten only worse since, to the point where after snafu #3 or so, I just ripped the update process out of the only laptop I have running win10 entirely after re-imaging it. If it ever gets pwned, I'll just re-image it back.
Of which "new hardware support" was achieved by literally forcing OEMs and hardware designers into not releasing win7 drivers. They even strong armed intel itself into not releasing full support for win7 on its most modern CPUs.
First point is superbly irrelevant, as Norway and Scotland are tightly integrated into the common market for cabrohydrates and have been before EU because what it is today. Netherlands is irrelevant, as most of their gas was for domestic production for a tiny nation for quite a while. Even if they were to fully switch to Russia supplies, additional consumption would be tiny.
On Nord Stream 1, note that not only is there still available capacity even in the numbers you quote, just as I noted, but Gazprom has already conceded that it will provide guarantees to current transit partners in exchange for required permits that gas transit over middle men like Poland will not suffer a massive reduction from Nord Stream 2. Ramp up of capacity you're talking about has been driven mostly by shift of transit from onshore transit routes, and utilized as a pressure tool on Eastern Europe.
That's where the political opposition to Nord Stream 2 came from. Should Nord Stream 2 be actually operated at any significant capacity, there may be severe political upheaval on EU level as middle men would lose their ability to extract significant monetary compensations from Germany for their economies. Considering the way Germany has hollowed out much of infrastructure across Eastern Europe as EU economic integration proceeded, we're looking at significant risks from it being fully operational.
As for LNG, I have some serious misgivings of suggesting that Russia has the capacity or ability to just suddenly leapfrog a supplier like US, for whom gas is effectively free by-product of shale, and who has the best maritime supply system and best ocean access of any country on the planet due to its geography. It frankly has all the same "big promise, little delivery" that anyone who has worked on Russian market knowns to be the core principle of its functionality.
I would argue that if you want to make a point of "Russia as the future of natgas on EU territory", a far more important factor would be the current trend in Syria effectively blocking Qatar from being able to pipe its gas to European continent entirely, and making it very hard for Israel to do so with its own offshore gas.
Enterprises get the enterprise version, which removes almost all of the "hot, new, amazing" technology and cedes control of the OS to the admin to make for an actually reliable OS.
Other users are stuck with home and pro versions which are the worst MS operating system since... I have problems finishing this sentence, as I had better luck even with ME.
I literally just outlined the way it was profitable for us.
How would that stop them from spinning off such efforts to third world locations in separate corporate entities? How would that stop massive companies who primarily work in other states who practice the same thing from delivering such a service just like the spying on one's own citizenry is delegated to other allies according to Snowden's revelations?
This is not a genie that can be put back into the bottle by a single nation, no matter how powerful.
I'm sorry, I thought I was talking to a rational individual and not just a Russian troll.
My understanding is that North Sea gas is fine for decades, which is about as much as anyone searches for today. Considering the need for alternative sources, Norway and Scotland will have plenty of resources for new wells even if they are uneconomical in the immediate pricing situation. EU grants will come very quickly should they be needed.
Nord Stream 2 isn't needed in any meaningful way right now on merits of "today", as Nord Stream 1 is underutilized. There's still plenty of capacity there. It's about future proofing and slowly and surely bypassing the middle men in Eastern Europe, some of whom are extremely opposed to Russia because of their geopolitical interests. In this regard, both Russia and Germany are very interested in Nord Stream 2, as it ensures that when Ukrainian cronies decide to grab the German money for gas and keep it on 3 month accounts in Swiss banks to accrue interest to steal, Russia won't have to cut gas due to lack of payment for months on end. Not to even mention the lesser problem of gas stealing, that is completely normal and accepted in those parts.
As for US supplying gas, most of the shale producers have wells for "30 years of production". Why not more? Because they would have to disclose this if it was so, which automatically makes them target for hostile takeover. Natgas is the by-product of shale, that is getting increasingly captured instead of flared. So US has supplies for at least 30 years, and realistically for far longer period of time. The problem here is costs, because energy expenditures to compress the gas into liquid and transport it are just too high compared to piped gas. You're looking at about 50% price increase for someone like Germany.
The centrists in Republican party are in control. Did you forget who Trump was just a few years ago?
He is the one who had republicans cheer for gay rights, and put on a judge that was attacked by democrats for every imagined sin they could falsely accuse him of. Even after going through massive public character assassination attempt that almost cost him everything, he still sided with them on principle in upholding Roe v. Wade.
The evidence is there if you stop turning away from it because of your TDS. Centrists are in control of republican party, and Trump's primary role was dragging them to centrist positions, kicking and screaming. It's why democratic party made its massive lurch to far left. To oppose Trump in everything and #resist, the only way to go was to the far end of left ideologically. It's why they flipped in a matter of a month on border security and support for war in Syria when Trump basically adopted something close to their positions on both points. It's no longer about the principles. It's about opposition to the character of Trump, no matter what position he takes.
That's why if rational centrists were to take back control in democratic party, they would have an easy time with Trump. When it comes to principles, they agree on most things. The only major complaints centrists have are about the public persona of Trump. And a rational human being should be able to overcome their feelings when their rational interests dictate otherwise. At least when they're that high on ladder of governmental authority.
Because it's new years, and early morning, so I typed it in instead of just copying it, and typed the wrong word in. Thanks for the correction.
The point I made stands on the same merits as before, as your correction changed nothing of relevance to it.
Except that, of course, his story was "European governments backing Nord Stream pipeline". Which is a very select few of European countries who stand to benefit from removal of middle men in Eastern Europe both in terms of supply security and costs.
Whereas you chose to talk about "money flows from Europe to Russia" which is a completely different set of countries. Essentially, you're talking about a completely different "Europe".
Why am I not surprised you have no one to spend the New Years with and are instead busy trolling on slashdot?
What "Europe" are you referring to? The German interests? Spanish? Polish? Estonian? Ukrainian? Russian?
If you want to complain about specifics, then be specific. Interests in Europe are widely divergent, and your statement about "Europe" is patently false on the face of it, as much of Europe has a grand total of zero dependency on Russian gas, while some has a lot.
The problem here is "how?"
Essentially all of the most used sites on the internet have massive interest in serving ads and tracking. Should any browser that actually breaks those two things appear and gain significant market share, its functionality WILL be slowly but increasingly broken on those sites to get people to switch from it to browsers that conform to advertisers' and information brokers' needs.
Even Mozilla, the purported champion of free web is financed almost wholly by various search engines world wide, and depending on installation location, will set different search engines. That means it's in Mozilla's direct interest to not help users with blocking things like tracking and ad serving by these search engines to make such partnerships as lucrative as possible.
So what is the business model that would work that can work both against the interests mentioned in the second paragraph and the third one?
The problem with your example is that such hypothetical agency was likely formed in a response of a long term trend causing some kind of a severe disaster due to long term growth of animal population.
Stoppage of such agency would not result in short term losses, but it may lead to economic disaster in half a decade. Because in many fields, government is the last line of defence acting when short term thinking corporations fail. Be it handling an oil spill, damage to overall farming output due to wrong kind of short term benefit long term catastrophic fertilization methodology and chemistry, or national defence.
Which brings us to difference between the government and corporation, and one of the few of Trump's actual (as opposed to those numerous imagined by sufferers of TDS) flaws. He has problems segregating "government functions that cannot be carried on like a corporation because of government being the last line of defence with no backup" and "government functions that are not the last line of defence, and where government's role can be at least to a significant extent picked up by private sector". We've seen this in many of his moves where he has treated government like a CEO treats a company. National government by design needs to take in account the long term effects of its polities, because the scenario of breakdown of government is nothing like a corporate bankruptcy. In case of corporate bankruptcy, government steps in with everything from its judiciary to its executive to manage this failure. When government breaks down, there is nothing above it to do the same. Society itself, and everything within it will collapse should this occur, and it will take a long time and a lot of damage for next governing body to re-emerge from anarchy that follows such events in human history, often with state borders themselves getting altered dramatically by such an event.
So in this regard, this is a dangerous game. Both for Trump and his ever increasingly hysterical opposition which is now engaging is absurd accusations which appear to mostly be "we agree with your views on border security, but because we must be seen in disagreement with you due to our audience largely suffering from TDS, we'll just alter our position to one that of diametric opposite of views we had just a month ago". At this point, given this rapid turnaround on both this issue and "pull the troops out of wars = bad" swing that happened effectively overnight, it's very difficult to see the current political events as those that are occurring between two rational actors invested in the future of their state. All while Trump clearly indicates that his primary interest is the future of the state with his actions.
It's going to be interesting to see how this unfolds, and if the more sane centrists can take control back within the democratic party to return to some kind of politics of the principles and actually be able to agree with Trump on points that were theirs just a few months ago, such as importance of having secure borders or that having soldiers participating in undeclared wars is bad.