Posted on 01/18/2015 2:50:54 PM PST by dila813
On January 14, Vladimir Putin ordered Russia’s natural gas monopoly, Gazprom, to cut back by 60% the natural gas delivered to Europe through Ukraine. His ostensible reason: Ukraine was illegally siphoning off gas for its own use—a charge Ukraine denies. Overall Europe depends on Russia for 30% of its gas supplies, and some 80% of Europe’s Russian natural gas comes via Ukraine. Putin’s order would leave six countries in eastern and southeastern Europe totally without gas.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
OMG....It’s because of what your government did with it’s destructive foreign and domestic policies ...
Not what I support..
Get a grip...This is not about me...wowza
By the way, are you wondering why the source link to the Forbes article no longer works?
So then Putin goes elsewhere(China) to sell gas and Europe goes elsewhere to buy gas.
I have no idea what that mess of a post was about.
Why not, we surrendered to Mexico, surrendered our sovereignty, all while we totally support Communist countries which we’re now up to our necks in debt to. On and on it goes.
There is no need for America to surrender to Russia, Communist China etc... We’re just giving it away, through decades long reckless domestic and foreign policies, which have looted and decimated the American treasure.
This has been going on for many years and is nothing new.
____________________________________________
And in ansell2 hysterical mind, this somehow means I support the total destruction of America.
Get a grip on reality ansell...Please.
The point here isn’t whether or not there are alternative routes. This gas cut off is a retaliation for sanctions. Surely the EU didn’t really expect that their sanctions would go unanswered.
But maybe they did. They are an arrogant lot.
Russia has those EU countries by the balls. The North sea natural gas already goes to the UK and the Norwegian countries. The others are going to be hurting for certain.
And Putin laughs at Obama.
The US to surrender to Russia?? Where do you find this in that?
The NATO countries affected will be hurting for certain. I expect them to go groveling to Putin and we will see what kind of pain he extracts from them.
Seriously, you are just raving now.
Post 17 seems to have unhinged you for some reason.
We are part of NATO, the dominant part.
As weakened as Russia is today, they still need to be dealt with firmly by NATO.
The Israeli gas coming online would be nice. The Europeans might have to temper their historic hostility towards Jews, the west bank “Palestinians”, and Israel a bit.
Id like to see Israel make Europe dance to their tune.
Of course, watching the arrogance they have used for Russia, I have no doubt that they would side with the Palestinians in the UN, support the divest movement, work to arrest and try members of the IDF, and try to supply Gaza with weapons,,,,,all the while demanding Israel never interrupt the flow of gas.
If Russia can sell its gas elsewhere than those other countries can get their gas elsewhere.
And Putin laughs at Obama.
No. Putin high-fives Obama and they both laugh at our country.
looks like zerohedge got some ‘splaining to do...
zerohedge’s story; takes awhile to scroll down and page over, but the comments call it out...
article refers to events and titles of people that were older than last week...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-14/russia-cuts-ukraine-gas-supply-6-european-countries?page=7
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-14/russia-cuts-ukraine-gas-supply-6-european-countries
No linky, no workey!
It would be good for us, but imagine the hoops we would have to go through to establish the infrastructure to ship LNG by ship to the EU in the quantities that replace a pipeline.
And LNG by ship is way more dangerous and expensive.
But it would be good for us if we could get the environuts out of the way.
the Daily Mail article:
didn’t have a date, but sounded like it was right before winter started... still its earlier than last week.
see links in #73 and #76
Likely Forbes pulled the story after they were told that they had the facts wrong. Forbes really isn’t a breaking news-type site and it may have just been a translation error from earlier stories.
yup, both thackney and my link go to the same 2009 story...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3248207/posts?page=19#19
While LNG is far more expensive, LNG is not dangerous. LNG will not even ignite. It first has to be vaporized and then diluted down to 5~15% concentration with air. Being lighter than air, it rises quickly up and away from the surface.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.