Recent posts

#1

Off the Record / Re: US - Greenland Crisis Thre...

Last post by OttoVonBismarck - Today at 12:18:28 PM

I actually think at this point NATO going away would potentially be the best thing to ever happen to Europe--Europe needs something to wake them out of their comfort and obsession with the idea the continent can simply be a giant resort where no country has to deal with anything serious. The obsessive idea that because Europe started two world wars, it is now retired from serious geopolitics.

The first order of business if NATO died would need to be--if Europe was serious about not falling into complete domination by Russia, immediate movement of significant European armies to the Baltics, France, Britain, Germany, Poland would need to agree to this very quickly or Europe will be picked apart at least on its peripheries.

But down the road, this could be the impetus for a real renaissance of European power.

I feel like people sometimes forget most of the Euro militaries were actually formidable during the Cold War, if rather untested. People act like some of these countries haven't had a real military since WW2, it's really only been since the early 1990s things got this dreadful with European defense.

#2

Off the Record / Re: [Canada] Canadian Politics...

Last post by viper37 - Today at 12:17:12 PM

Relatedly, I have banned the use of computers in my classroom, and, after an initial pushback, they like it and are back to taking notes by hand.

Tyranny.

I really think that is going overboard.  Especially for the new generation who are computer illiterates.

#3

Off the Record / Re: Quo Vadis, Democrats?

Last post by viper37 - Today at 12:14:36 PM

Fetterman is just like any other regular Joe in America. When he found himself with time in felled into the Joe Rogan/YOUTUBE algorithmic filled bender that is the modern Anglo internet and he now thinks that nothing but power can be trusted or true.

He suffered a stroke, IIRC, and he began to change after that, didn't he?

#4

Off the Record / Re: US - Greenland Crisis Thre...

Last post by Zanza - Today at 12:11:24 PM

Donald Trump has said "it may be a choice" for the U.S. between pursuing his ambition to take control of Greenland and keeping NATO intact.

The U.S. president was asked in a two-hour interview with the New York Times on Jan. 7 whether acquiring Greenland mattered more to him than preserving the 76-year-old military alliance — a question that has taken on new urgency for America's European allies in recent days as Trump and his colleagues have escalated their rhetoric about obtaining the self-ruling Danish territory.

Trump did not answer the question directly but acknowledged that his administration may have to choose between the two, according to the newspaper's account of the conversation published on Thursday.

Trump, when asked why he wanted the U.S. to control Greenland, said: "Because that's what I feel is psychologically needed for success. I think that ownership gives you a thing that you can't do with, you're talking about a lease or a treaty. Ownership gives you things and elements that you can't get from just signing a document."
The U.S. president also told the Times he did not feel answerable to international law and was constrained only by his own conscience. "My own morality. My own mind. It's the only thing that can stop me," he said.
"I don't need international law," he added.

https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-interview-us-greenland-grab-nato-preservation-choice/

Same question that was asked before: What would he do different if he was a Russian asset. I can't think of a quicker and easier way to destroy NATO.

I guess even the Republicans in the senate would not follow him if they would have to actively decide to destroy NATO. But a quick fait accompli by Trump could destroy it. Which would obviously be a strategic victory for Russia.

#5

Off the Record / Re: Trump's Venezuela Vendetta

Last post by OttoVonBismarck - Today at 11:37:39 AM

There was a plentiful supply of oil in 2025 and the price fell from 79$ to 63$. This is with Russia, Iran and Venezuela being sanctioned and also a generally weak dollar. If the price falls further then shale oil production in the USA becomes unprofitable (the breakeven cost seems to be between 45$ and 70$ a barrel). I just can't see why the oil companies would want to waste money investing in an unstable country given these facts.

I suppose Venezuelan oil could substitute for oil from Alberta if Trump wanted to put the squeeze on Canada?

Yeah, at current prices while many already drilled American wells remain profitable, the $ doesn't make sense to aggressively develop new wells.

The press isn't discussing it as much outside of industry / business journals, but a big thing going on is OPEC has basically abandoned for the time any pretense of restricting supply to prop up prices. Too many of the big OPEC countries want to produce more to grab more market share, and you haven't seen the cartel do much like it has traditionally done to artificially jack prices up.

This isn't good long term for U.S. oil companies, which benefit much more than many of the OPEC countries do from higher prices (due to most of them being lower cost producers.)

There's also probably a meta issue in that the U.S. high production relative to current proven U.S. reserves, we're speed running depleting our own reserves which isn't something I suspect the Trump Admin even thinks about.

#6

Off the Record / Re: Trump's Venezuela Vendetta

Last post by HVC - Today at 11:14:17 AM

Krugman has a writeup on how the vast oil reserves of Venezuela may be somewhat overstated: https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/the-emperors-new-oil-wealth

The two key points IMO are:

You may have heard that Venezuela has the world's largest oil reserves — 300 billion barrels. You probably don't know that Venezuela's reported oil reserves tripled while Hugo Chavez was president. This increase, from roughly 100 billion to 300 billion barrels, didn't reflect major new discoveries or exploration. Instead, it reflected the Chavez government's decision to reclassify the country's Orinoco Belt heavy oil as "proved" — oil that can be recovered with reasonable certainty under existing economic and operating conditions

and

As Torsten Slok of Apollo, who recently made this point, notes, "Much of the oil is extra-heavy, which has low recovery and a high cost to produce." This suggests that Venezuela's claims to have immense usable oil reserves were politically motivated hype.

Interesting to think they might have oversold their own overthrow.

Not the first time Trumps gone bankrupt making bad real estate deals. Although it would be his first time to do it to a country. But if anyone can do it it's a guy that many times over failed at being a casino owner.

#7

Off the Record / Re: Trump's Venezuela Vendetta

Last post by Josquius - Today at 11:03:55 AM

Krugman has a writeup on how the vast oil reserves of Venezuela may be somewhat overstated: https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/the-emperors-new-oil-wealth

The two key points IMO are:

You may have heard that Venezuela has the world's largest oil reserves — 300 billion barrels. You probably don't know that Venezuela's reported oil reserves tripled while Hugo Chavez was president. This increase, from roughly 100 billion to 300 billion barrels, didn't reflect major new discoveries or exploration. Instead, it reflected the Chavez government's decision to reclassify the country's Orinoco Belt heavy oil as "proved" — oil that can be recovered with reasonable certainty under existing economic and operating conditions

and

As Torsten Slok of Apollo, who recently made this point, notes, "Much of the oil is extra-heavy, which has low recovery and a high cost to produce." This suggests that Venezuela's claims to have immense usable oil reserves were politically motivated hype.

Interesting to think they might have oversold their own overthrow.

#8

Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...

Last post by Crazy_Ivan80 - Today at 10:51:03 AM

UAE deems UK universities have too high a risk of Islamist indoctrination, cancels scholarships

Muslim brotherhood influence, as expected. It's a plague on our houses, as the French have also reported.
But till there's people denying there's a problem.

#9

Off the Record / Re: Trump's Venezuela Vendetta

Last post by Richard Hakluyt - Today at 10:20:38 AM

It would take many years I think and the oil companies would surely drag their heels as well.

#10

Off the Record / Re: Trump's Venezuela Vendetta

Last post by HVC - Today at 10:17:03 AM

There was a plentiful supply of oil in 2025 and the price fell from 79$ to 63$. This is with Russia, Iran and Venezuela being sanctioned and also a generally weak dollar. If the price falls further then shale oil production in the USA becomes unprofitable (the breakeven cost seems to be between 45$ and 70$ a barrel). I just can't see why the oil companies would want to waste money investing in an unstable country given these facts.

I suppose Venezuelan oil could substitute for oil from Alberta if Trump wanted to put the squeeze on Canada?

I guess eventually, but do they have the port and logistics infrastructure in place in the US?