Topic: Russian Gas ban - A problem for Europe or suicide for Russia? - page 45. (Read 14504 times)

For some reason, fairy tales about the impending "terribly cold winter" began to appear not in January, and not in March, and not even in May, but in July, when it became clear to the Kremlin that the military operation had turned into a total failure and collapse, that no one was afraid of them (except for tame sales dogs), and everyone seriously decided to give up oil and gas and the bloody hands of an international terrorist!
These are fairy tales from the region of April and the Kremlin's screeching "if you don't go to negotiations and don't accept our conditions, then that's it, we'll do such a thing that we ourselves are scared!"
And before that, it was "we will finish the operation in 3-4 weeks" ... And before that, "the Russian army is the second in the world in terms of power" ... And much more other nonsense and stupid lies. But this is Russia, this is normal for Russia, we already know this for sure!

You can wonder also about the price of donuts in Bartovia, the article clearly mentions those numbers were in March but of course, paranoia and propaganda are stopping you from actually understanding a simple text.

Here is the live status of gas storage across Europe:
https://agsi.gie.eu/


It's at 64.42% as I type this, and is still growing for day-to-day intervals by 0.41, a full 40% extra of tears for Russian and Iranian propaganda.

I wonder what would come of Europe in winter specially since the gas reserves are at 26% and decreasing while they should be at least 80% before winter comes. The recent article published by the economist paints a gloomy picture for EU.
Here is parts of it:
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/07/14/europes-winter-of-discontent

The author suggests something strange at the end, they suggest increasing the consumer prices to curtail demand and suggests people start decreasing their usage! This is mostly strange because the biggest part of the energy usage comes from industries not regular people. Even if everyone shut down their AC it still wouldn't make a difference.

Tell me - is this all the information you have? Why the question - in open sources there is a complete picture of what happened on May 11, 2022, and there are no such ambiguous explanations. When studying a topic, do you manage with short excerpts? I strongly recommend that you study what is happening in detail, and preferably from several sources.
But back to your answer, by the way, you never provided a source, and this is important! What is completely true - the specified territory is temporarily occupied by Russian terrorists. This does not allow Ukraine to fulfill contractual obligations and ensure the safety, control and management of compressor stations. Which is quite logical. But Ukraine did not just cut off the gas, as Russia likes to do, the country is a terrorist in every respect. Ukraine officially and openly announced the reasons related to force majeure, and again, as an honest participant in the contractual conditions, observing the interests of European partners, and worried about the safety of its gas transportation system, it proposed a temporary transfer of capacities from Sokhranivka to the Sudzha connection point, which is located on the territory controlled by Ukraine.
Regarding the security of the GTS, anything can be expected from terrorists who without hesitation launch cruise missiles into the centers of peaceful Ukrainian cities, including terrorist attacks against our GTS. Is it logical? I'm sure yes!

And here, for some reason, Russia did not answer in any way and did not transfer traffic to the indicated point, which led to a decrease in gas pumping to the EU. True, the picture that you described is noticeably different from what I provided?


I even cite the official answer, and a link to it: "The operator of the GTS of Ukraine (OGTSU) reports the onset of force majeure circumstances that make it impossible to further transport gas through the Sohranivka GIS and the border compressor station (CS) Novopskov, which located in the occupied territory.
It is noted that at present, the OGTSU cannot exercise operational and technological control over the Novopskov CS and other assets located in the territories temporarily occupied by Russian invaders. In addition, the intervention of the occupying forces in technological processes, changes in the operating modes of GTS facilities, including unauthorized gas withdrawals from the transit flow, jeopardized the stability and security of the entire Ukrainian gas transmission system.

https://www.ukrinform.ru/rubric-economy/3479880-ukraina-vynuzdena-prekratit-transit-gaza-cerez-stanciu-sohranovka.html

Some interesting news might be related to Natural Gas. China seems likely to drop the ban on Aussie's Coal to meet its energy demand as Natural Gas prices become so high. Some EU countries have also made some moves to turn on the old Coal plants. Do you think Coal prices will increase more in the future as more countries turn to it as an alternative to Natural Gas? Other than the obvious that Coal has more CO2 emissions compared to Natural Gas, do you think even with the increase in price for Coal in the foreseen future, it's still cheaper and less political burden compare to Natural Gas in the long run?
Pic source to @Trinhnomics

Everything here is a little more complicated than it seems at first glance. Pipelines with gas pass through Ukraine further to Europe. Ukraine has already said directly that it can cut off the supply of Russian gas through its territory and thereby fundamentally solve the problem of imposing an embargo on Russian gas. But so far, some European countries are not ready to give up Russian gas so abruptly. The EU is looking for and finding new gas suppliers, while at the same time trying over time not only to reduce its consumption, but also to completely abandon it. This process is already underway and it will be disastrous for Russia.

Ukraine now cannot cut off the flow of gas to Europe, since it is connected with the relevant contracts for the supply to European countries. It is Russia that now spits on all international agreements and obligations. Ukraine, unlike Russia, is a civilized state.

In your own terminology, you are trading with terrorists who have attacked and invaded your country. And you have no problem with it. It seems hypocritical to me, or at least strange.

In general, the topic of Russian gas transit through Ukraine looks artificially taboo, especially in the West. It's funny.

The reason given by the Ukrainian side is that Sokhranovka entry point is currently under the control of the rebels and they can't accurately measure the gas flows at that station. That is not a valid reason, because there are several more compressor stations which are controlled by the Kiev regime on this pipeline and the measurement can be made at any of these points. Anyway, with less amount of gas being carried through these pipelines, Ukraine will also receive less amount of transit fees from Gazprom.

Well, if we adhered to the terrorist concept, like Russia, we would of course blow up / put on service / raise the price for transit. But we are not Russia and not a terrorist state. We will not amplify the problems of the EU. The EU itself must decide to stop buying gas. And the fact that Russia pays is good, it goes into service with the Armed Forces of Ukraine, and the further defeat of the invaders - Russian terrorists. So no problem

PS By the way - congratulations, now the cryptocurrency in Russia can only be seen on TV
"Putin signed a law banning payment for goods and services with cryptocurrency
The document obliges CFA exchange operators to refuse transactions where it is possible to use such assets “as a monetary surrogate”

“It is prohibited to transfer or accept digital financial assets as a consideration for transferred goods, performed works, rendered services, as well as in any other way that allows one to assume payment for goods (works, services) by a digital financial asset, except as otherwise provided by federal laws,” — says in the document.
In addition to the ban on the use of DFA and DSM when paying for goods and services, the document obliges DFA exchange operators to refuse transactions where it is possible to use such assets as a monetary surrogate.

https://www.rbc.ru/crypto/news/62d030349a79471d35e8cc78

Congratulations !

It will be very interesting to hear from you the reasons for this "closure", with reference to the source! I hope to hear clarifications - what happened?

And the northern stream, well, what can I say? I repeat once again - this is a retribution, a retribution for the fact that Schroeder himself became the bedding of the Kremlin and made the entire industry of Germany the same dependent kept woman. Now Germany has an excellent opportunity to think about whether it is still worth maintaining relations with terrorists, whether it is worth making its economy a hostage to the wild fantasies of a demented pathetic parody of Hitler. And, perhaps, it is worth stopping being an obedient servant of the Kremlin. I think the people of Germany will now understand who and how made them hostage to this situation and will make the right choice.

Out of the two pipelines through Ukraine, only one is operating right now. The one running through Sokhranovka/Lugansk is no longer operating, because the Ukrainians have banned gas transport through that area. And this has further escalated the gas shortage in the EU. Nord Stream is closed since 11th July for maintenance, and there is no guarantee that it will operate at full capacity unless the Siemens turbine is returned from Canada. And a few days ago, Justin Trudeau announced that Canada will be returning the turbine. But there is no guarantee.

That is, Ukraine, as an honest partner, continues to transit Russian gas to Europe through its territory and takes money from Russian Gazprom for this, and do you think that this is normal in the context of an armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine? Why did Ukraine not impose sanctions on the transit of Russian gas through its territory?

Everything is extremely simple:
1. Ukraine, as an honest partner, fulfills its obligations and ensures the operability of the gas transportation system belonging to Ukraine. We honor our obligations, and if we have signed an agreement with adequate partners, we fulfill it, even in such a difficult situation.
2. Russia is afraid to bomb this pipeline, since all its attempts to finally monopolize the EU market with gas supplies have failed as expected. And now, if a terrorist country cannot supply gas to the EU, it will simply be left without money But a terrorist country needs to finance a terrorist operation on the territory of Ukraine.

And what are some other reasons?

As of now, Germany is begging the Canadians to return the Siemens turbine, so that Nord Stream could operate at full capacity. At the same time, the European citizens are overjoyed because the natural gas prices have risen to $54 per MMBTU (around $1,840 per thousand cubic meters, prices at Dutch TTF). BTW, from what I heard the Turkish Stream pipeline has resumed pumping gas to Turkey and the Balkans. It was closed for repairs, but now it is operating at full capacity once again. This means that at least the Balkan nations doesn't need to worry about anything.

Would gladly read comment on the following.



This is the map of Russian gas pipe line. https://liveuamap.com/ - this is the page that shows were war is going on. According to it, all a lot of war actions are made on the territory where gas pipe lies. Google pictures shows that this gas pipe line is above the ground. Now the question - why there are no news that gas pipe was destroyed, damaged, accidentally hit and etc. Both sides are shooting and bombing each other but avoid hitting gas pipe ?

Well, today Nord Stream 1 is completely blocked for scheduled repairs. Pipeline gas from Russia to Europe now comes only through Ukraine, along a branch that passes through the Sudzha junction. It is ironic that, technically, Ukraine can now completely rid Europe of dependence on Russian gas by turning off just one valve. A great and rare opportunity when all the other pipelines are scheduled for repairs, let's see if her balls are strong enough for this. 

I saw your previous posts and came to know you are from Ukarine.
How many killed in Chechen wars is still not cleared since they were not important to both Russia and USA.
NATO peacekeeping missions - it's just about perception, as one men freedom fighter is terrorist for other. You are with USA and EU side that that's why whatever they did in countries they invaded seems a peacekeeping mission for you. Today Russian invasion is seen as peacekeeping mission for Russia and its allies.
I live in a region which is connected with Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq, USA went to find WMDs but nothing was found and they ended the operation that killed thousands of civilians by saying Sorry. That's peacekeeping mission for you but not for many.

According to neutral observers, around 100,000 people died during the two Chechen wars. And out of all the casualties, around 70% were ethnic Russians and another 10% were other white ethnic groups such as Ukrainians and Germans. Most of the deaths occurred in Grozny, which was a Slavic majority city at that time, and the smaller Chechen population migrated to the homes of their relatives in the hills before the city was levelled and destroyed. Slavs were 30% of the population of Chechenya before the war, and now they are 2%. Still want to blame Russia?

Interesting point mentioned. This too is not to be ignored. These powerful countries are only there to suppress the weak territories.
I wish no more happens - we already are not yet out of the COVID and Russia war. On the other hand USA is also prepare counter attacks on Afghanistan. What is going on around the world is unacceptable.

In Ichkeria alone, Russia destroyed about 400,000 civilians.
Thousands of Russians were destroyed by the terrorist attacks of the FSB - blown up houses, subways, etc.
Tens of hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed in Moldova, Georgia, Karabakh, Ukraine, ... Millions of civilians from the listed countries lost everything and were forced to become wanderers ... And how many the Russian Federation / USSR destroyed - that's hundreds of millions!
But NATO conducted peacekeeping operations, did not shoot at civilians, helped stop internal conflicts... Or is this a different case? What do you say, lover of Russian propaganda?