Topic: Energy Crisis 2.0 in the New World Order era - page 8. (Read 2734 times)

This is neither new nor an amazing discovery. Did you previously believe in loyal friendships between countries? As a politician once said, “There are neither permanent friends nor permanent enemies, there are permanent interests.”
Russia is exploiting its alliance with China on the basis that they have a common enemy (America, NATO, and the West), and China is taking advantage of this friendship on the basis of the same basis to serve its interests in other ways. It is the same thing that America does when it involves its allies in a war in which they are the most affected, and here I mean the Ukrainian war.
International relations in general are like an ongoing, non-stop cold war. As it is known, “In war and love, anything is permissible.”

Your biggest problem that blinds you to a lot of the facts of this world is your racist tendencies and your hatred of the civilized east. This is most clear in this post of yours. You support US while bashing China while they both are two sides of the same coin! A lot of what these two countries do are exactly the same too! Like (ab)using other countries to fulfill their own interests.

In fact in this world 99% of what you see as "alliance" is just a coalition. Like NATO

In today's world, you can expect anything from some countries, even things that are not logical and seem blatantly wrong

The only thing I disagree with is that Russia and China are PARTNERS. For China, Russia is just a tool that China can use to "test" or perform some actions that may be painful to the performer. Like a stick to poke a hive of wasps with China is a pragmatic and cynical country, which in my opinion does not use the concept of "friendship" or "partnership" in international politics and international relations. China is only interested in personal gain. But this is my personal opinion

I know it's debatable, and I know that I could definitely be wrong with that mere shower-thought, BUT if China and Russia's real objective is to weaken the United States' empire and their politicial strongholds, THEN the time to attack them is NOW, through a proxy war or a direct war. To force the United States into making the wrong set of monetary policies to pay for their war.

The U.S. needs to issue "War Bonds" to fund the war, but the problem - They can't turn on the money printer to buy those bonds (hyperinflationary), and because of the current risks, no foreign country would be stupid enough to buy those bonds unless yields are high enough (unstable economy), WHICH also needs the money printer to pay interest on those bonds.

...The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Muhammad bin Salman, ordered his court scientists to “explain to the people” not to “discuss the situation in Gaza,” because “Managers know more and better about the situation” and will “deal with this issue” themselves.
Even he understands that he must avoid Hamas, terrorists, and continue to interact with the civilized world. So.. it didn’t work out with support...


Of course, I know that these are peoples of the same origin, I was not raised on textbooks with fake history and made-up “facts”. So ? Do we consider this an “internal conflict of fraternal peoples” and is this their INTERNAL personal problem? Then why are all sorts of terrorists from nearby territories getting in there, let them decide for themselves what is convenient for them? Or is this not the case?

The situation in US is the result of a series of bad decisions some of which date back at least 4 decades.
Translated into Bitcoin World, imagine someone who has gotten used to shorting bitcoin because price has been dropping for a long time. But that trend is going to change at some point and when it does if that person can not see the change or refuses to accept the change and continues to short bitcoin while price keeps going up, they continue losing their money.

I've been talking about this a lot lately "rules who refuse to accept the world has changed will pay the price". US regime doesn't want to accept that not only it is not the super power of the world but also the regime doesn't want to accept that it is considered a pariah state by the rest of the world.

For example they think they can bring their aircraft carrier group and scare people in the countries they still occupy into remaining silent when US military steals their oil. But the reality is what's been happening over the past year, US military is being attacked by those people and they can't even defend themselves.
 
Now we can start to understand one of the reasons why US started "releasing" its strategic reserves.
For example the 300,000+ bpd they were stealing from Syria is now at about 50,000 bpd and the little they steal is usually attacked and destroyed before they can get it out. This is one of the reasons why US faced an increasing deficit and had to release the reserves to cover it (I believe it was 4.4 million barrels released per day) and they can only do that for about 4 months.
Of course there are other reasons too but this one is usually overlooked which is why I expanded on it.

US is the biggest oil consumer in the world (more than 20 million barrels per day) and the entire extractable oil the have is only sufficient to cover a little more than 4 years of this kind of consumption. They are also extracting as much as they can and the more you extract, it would make it harder to extract the remainder so the production is expected to fall at some point in the future too.
They already have a big deficit too (between 8 to 10 million bpd) which they cover with imports. When the oil producers like Saudi produce less, when the amount of oil they steal decreases, etc. that deficit grows so they have to release their reserves...

You are right and I said I wouldn't read too much into the threat itself. The point for including it here was to mention one of the indications of the rising tensions in the oil rich region that is going to affect the oil price and consequently everything else, which is the subject we discuss here.
As for the threat itself, it was a necessity because a terrorist organization that owns weapons of mass destruction needs to be reminded that legitimate countries do too.

You do know that Arabs are Semites too, right?

Very interesting idea, or even scenario. A sort of "1973 oil crisis. 50 years later."

It's theoretically possible. But in my opinion, it's more of a no than a yes. Let me explain.
In '73, there was a real confrontation between "two different worlds" that had nothing in common. The interconnection of economies, politics, and other things had an almost ethereal connection....
Although...what is exactly the same is the trigger that led to the crisis. Then a "group of aggressive anti-Semites" decided to attack Israel...ended up getting a brutal response, after which they "sat on their asses, among their destroyed armies". By the way, the USSR, as an ideologue of some currents, also participated there, but already in those times habitually said "we are not there"
Now the situation is almost identical, only the composition of the "group of aggressive anti-Semites" is different.
But not only the composition has changed. Attitudes, dependencies,.... Those who have "nothing to lose" (Iran, Russia, etc.) who have big internal and external problems are ready to "play war", at the expense of reducing the tension inside (from conscription to the front/slaughter, to repression of those who are dissatisfied with the authorities - "we have a holy war, and you behave like this!"). But other countries are not ready to destroy the world that they have built over the last 50 years, built economies, interconnections, beautiful cities and gave the people of their countries a happy and future-oriented life.  That is why today, a significant part of the Middle East countries, which have a significant weight in the oil market, categorically do not want war - it will destroy their countries. and the fires understand this very well. No, they do not support Israel, but they will not go along with terrorist fanatical groups either. So there will be no support for the "entire Middle East"...And without that, there will be no repeat of the 1973 Oil Crisis. 50 years later." The maximum that will be enough is a SIGNIFICANT localized conflict involving Lebanon, Pakistan, Iran on one side and the US and some other countries on the other.

The only problem that can really create problems is an externally controlled and directed "Arab revolt in the EU". The people there have really played the game of tolerance and kindness, and now they will get a slap on the head for it, from those who were sheltered. Yeah, that's bad. But I hope it will be a good lesson and will push to take unpopular, but NECESSARY decisions (for a long time, by the way), for the survival of the EU....

 And about China. Yes, China now needs to look for "extraordinary steps" to officially "tighten the screws" on the population, as there is an economic crisis ahead. And getting involved in the war in the Middle East, it will have to make a choice - to be on the side of the civilized world, or on the side of terrorist fanatics ? The choice of the second direction is guaranteed to lower the iron shield around China, relative to Western markets. And regional partners are likely to turn away, as they do not remember the word "terrorism" from the best side.... Of course, we can assume that Xi JinPing decided to close the Chinese economy and make it "self-sufficient", but I do not believe in the assumption that he had his brain amputated )
Yes he will try to "throw wood on the fire", but it will be very careful not to draw much attention to himself as a terrorist collaborator.
The fact is that China and the West (USA) have a "confrontation", but without the USA and its deterrent, China itself will not be able to pull the whole world as a world leader. Plus - China's economy cannot live without Western markets. In a word, it is a symbiosis where both participants bite each other a little, but they will not kill each other as they will die themselves.

It's interesting to hear reasoned and thoughtful opinions. Yes, I agree in this context that some forces want to build a world of chaos and lawlessness, failing to fit into the world system and being complex because of their status.
And the attempt to drag the US into a global massacre is a "wonderful idea", which will eventually involve all NATO countries, terrorist groups and "hesitant" countries, etc.

Regarding China - I don't think that they, at least in today's situation, will dare to have a direct military confrontation with the US. On the one hand, for such totalitarian regimes with a troubled economy, war is a "good solution" to internal problems, but.... What will China get out of it? Ruined world economy, ruined China (war always affects the territories of both sides), very difficult decades of recovery and difficult times.
 
I would rather believe in its role as an "outside observer", because for China the weakening of the US and the "global west" by the hands of Russia, Iran and other terrorist states is a more favorable event than a direct confrontation, for which the US and the "global west" will have to fight a war.