4 ms·

Alternative geopolitical and economic voices have been predicting this since the outbreak of the Ukrainian-Russia conflict. The reality is without cheap energy

Alternative geopolitical and economic voices have been predicting this since the outbreak of the Ukrainian-Russia conflict. The reality is without cheap energy (nat gas, nuke power), European manufacturing just can’t compete with other industrial economies.

thc-27182 3y ago
Sounds like a win for N. America. A lose for Russia. Guess they probably shouldn't have started the war then.
- nmlwr 3y ago
  Of course. That was the plan and one of the reasons why the U.S. did not back down on Ukraine NATO membership in 2021, with the anticipated result (article is from before the war and there are plenty of other sources): https://www.vox.com/22900113/nato-ukraine-russia-crisis-clinton-expansion https://www.vox.com/22900113/nato-ukraine-russia-crisis-clin... All that is left for the EU is to fight over some of Ukraine's mineral rights, competing with Blackrock etc.
  - _kbh_ 3y ago
    > Of course. That was the plan and one of the reasons why the U.S. did not back down on Ukraine NATO membership in 2021, with the anticipated result (article is from before the war and there are plenty of other sources): The war started in 2014, the full invasion only started in 2022, so this makes no sense whatsoever.
    - klrlr 3y ago
      The situation was exactly the same before 2014: https://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-russia-cable-2014-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-russia-cable-2014-... Moreover, U.S. efforts to sabotage EU-Russia trades go back to the Soviet times.
      - _kbh_ 3y ago
        are you the same person as above? why do you keep making new users?. > The situation was exactly the same before 2014: > https://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-russia-cable-2014-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-russia-cable-2014-... > Moreover, U.S. efforts to sabotage EU-Russia trades go back to the Soviet times. There as zero talk of Ukraine being in NATO in serious manner before Russia invaded, if Ukraine manages to get into NATO, Russia would have caused it.
        dmpk2k 3y ago
        For some definition of "zero": Issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Bucharest on 3 April 2008 We, the Heads of State and Government of the member countries of the North Atlantic Alliance, met today to enlarge our Alliance and further strengthen our ability to confront the existing and emerging 21st century security threats. We reviewed the significant progress we have made in recent years to transform NATO, agreeing that this is a process that must continue. Recognising the enduring value of the transatlantic link and of NATO as the essential forum for security consultations between Europe and North America, we reaffirmed our solidarity and cohesion and our commitment to the common vision and shared democratic values embodied in the Washington Treaty. The principle of the indivisibility of Allied security is fundamental. A strong collective defence of our populations, territory and forces is the core purpose of our Alliance and remains our most important security task. We reiterate our faith in the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. [...] NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. Both nations have made valuable contributions to Alliance operations. We welcome the democratic reforms in Ukraine and Georgia and look forward to free and fair parliamentary elections in Georgia in May. MAP is the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct way to membership. Today we make clear that we support these countries’ applications for MAP. Therefore we will now begin a period of intensive engagement with both at a high political level to address the questions still outstanding pertaining to their MAP applications. We have asked Foreign Ministers to make a first assessment of progress at their December 2008 meeting. Foreign Ministers have the authority to decide on the MAP applications of Ukraine and Georgia. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm I'll never understand why we recently pretend that we haven't been poking the bear.
- dmpk2k 3y ago
  Not sure if it's a win. The vast resources in Russia will now be channeled into China (and India). If you're an American strategist, a China with Russia's resources should be giving you serious jitters. And European manufacturing should be terrified.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - thc-27182 3y ago
    China is getting those resources regardless. It's just a negotiation on price, which Russia is having to sell lower than normal. Which hurts Russia more than it benefits China. Not every trade has to be zerosum.
    - dmpk2k 3y ago
      I was talking about American strategy. Russia was and is a largely-neutralized regional great power, no longer any real threat to Western hegemonic power. China is a different matter. China manufactures more than America, EU and Japan combined, and (IIRC) produces more STEM graduates than all of them too. Add Russia's resources on top, and even with the major demographic problems China faces, America has a challenger on its hands that's much bigger than the Soviet Union could ever aspire to be. Strongly shoving Russia into China's orbit was just plain stupid. It looks like they were gambling on regime change; a bad gamble if ever I saw one. Edit: all of this is ignoring India too. At some point India will catch up, and then the collective West potentially could end up third.
  - ericmay 3y ago
    Eh not really. It’s a supreme oversimplification of global economics. If China starts buying more oil and gas from Russia then it stops buying as much from the Middle East. America is I believe now the largest producer of at least some oil and gas products. The market is global. Also, while Russia is or would be happy to sell resources to China to fund the lifestyles of extremely wealthy dictators and murderers, Russia (the State) will always view China with some amount of healthy suspicion for geopolitical reasons. The fear you’re alluding to came and went with Cold War and the destruction of the Soviet Empire.
- ChatGTP 3y ago
  This sounds like a take by Peter Zeihan :)
RandomLensman 3y ago
Europe has a lot of shale gas it isn't using - it's a political decision.
cribbles 3y ago
If we limit this claim to _just_ German manufacturing competitiveness (which is often synonymous with "European manufacturing" in the context of these discussions -- and I will assume this is true of your comment as well, given the nuclear energy remark), this really isn't true. What changed my view on this was one of Adam Tooze's newsletters from last year.[1] The relevant points here are: - Germany manufacturing is less gas-intensive than the global average. - Energy costs only constitute a small and decreasing share of total industrial costs -- about 5.8% for the German manufacturing industry as a whole, and 3% for leading export sectors (namely the auto industry). - Most German manufacturing -- and this is true of European manufacturing more broadly -- is primarily in high-margin, value-added sectors where quality, rather than cost, are the competitive factor. Another important detail lost in the invocation of "cheap gas" is that Europe as a whole, and German in particular, has never had particularly "cheap gas." European natural gas prices have long been well above those in the US, and Germany's have been above the European average for the last 15 years or so. I agree with both Tooze and the majority view that, notwithstanding the above points, Germany's post-war energy policy has been a catastrophe. It has certainly limited its manufacturing potential. But the effect of the Ukrainian war on its _already_ limited manufacturing sector, due to _already_ not-so-cheap energy, tends to be exaggerated. [1] https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-150-why-cheap-russian-gas https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-150-why-cheap-rus...

thc-27182 3y ago

Sounds like a win for N. America. A lose for Russia. Guess they probably shouldn't have started the war then.

nmlwr 3y ago
Of course. That was the plan and one of the reasons why the U.S. did not back down on Ukraine NATO membership in 2021, with the anticipated result (article is from before the war and there are plenty of other sources): https://www.vox.com/22900113/nato-ukraine-russia-crisis-clinton-expansion https://www.vox.com/22900113/nato-ukraine-russia-crisis-clin... All that is left for the EU is to fight over some of Ukraine's mineral rights, competing with Blackrock etc.
- _kbh_ 3y ago
  > Of course. That was the plan and one of the reasons why the U.S. did not back down on Ukraine NATO membership in 2021, with the anticipated result (article is from before the war and there are plenty of other sources): The war started in 2014, the full invasion only started in 2022, so this makes no sense whatsoever.
  - klrlr 3y ago
    The situation was exactly the same before 2014: https://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-russia-cable-2014-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-russia-cable-2014-... Moreover, U.S. efforts to sabotage EU-Russia trades go back to the Soviet times.
    - _kbh_ 3y ago
      are you the same person as above? why do you keep making new users?. > The situation was exactly the same before 2014: > https://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-russia-cable-2014-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-russia-cable-2014-... > Moreover, U.S. efforts to sabotage EU-Russia trades go back to the Soviet times. There as zero talk of Ukraine being in NATO in serious manner before Russia invaded, if Ukraine manages to get into NATO, Russia would have caused it.
      - dmpk2k 3y ago
        For some definition of "zero": Issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Bucharest on 3 April 2008 We, the Heads of State and Government of the member countries of the North Atlantic Alliance, met today to enlarge our Alliance and further strengthen our ability to confront the existing and emerging 21st century security threats. We reviewed the significant progress we have made in recent years to transform NATO, agreeing that this is a process that must continue. Recognising the enduring value of the transatlantic link and of NATO as the essential forum for security consultations between Europe and North America, we reaffirmed our solidarity and cohesion and our commitment to the common vision and shared democratic values embodied in the Washington Treaty. The principle of the indivisibility of Allied security is fundamental. A strong collective defence of our populations, territory and forces is the core purpose of our Alliance and remains our most important security task. We reiterate our faith in the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. [...] NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. Both nations have made valuable contributions to Alliance operations. We welcome the democratic reforms in Ukraine and Georgia and look forward to free and fair parliamentary elections in Georgia in May. MAP is the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct way to membership. Today we make clear that we support these countries’ applications for MAP. Therefore we will now begin a period of intensive engagement with both at a high political level to address the questions still outstanding pertaining to their MAP applications. We have asked Foreign Ministers to make a first assessment of progress at their December 2008 meeting. Foreign Ministers have the authority to decide on the MAP applications of Ukraine and Georgia. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm I'll never understand why we recently pretend that we haven't been poking the bear.
dmpk2k 3y ago
Not sure if it's a win. The vast resources in Russia will now be channeled into China (and India). If you're an American strategist, a China with Russia's resources should be giving you serious jitters. And European manufacturing should be terrified.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- thc-27182 3y ago
  China is getting those resources regardless. It's just a negotiation on price, which Russia is having to sell lower than normal. Which hurts Russia more than it benefits China. Not every trade has to be zerosum.
  - dmpk2k 3y ago
    I was talking about American strategy. Russia was and is a largely-neutralized regional great power, no longer any real threat to Western hegemonic power. China is a different matter. China manufactures more than America, EU and Japan combined, and (IIRC) produces more STEM graduates than all of them too. Add Russia's resources on top, and even with the major demographic problems China faces, America has a challenger on its hands that's much bigger than the Soviet Union could ever aspire to be. Strongly shoving Russia into China's orbit was just plain stupid. It looks like they were gambling on regime change; a bad gamble if ever I saw one. Edit: all of this is ignoring India too. At some point India will catch up, and then the collective West potentially could end up third.
- ericmay 3y ago
  Eh not really. It’s a supreme oversimplification of global economics. If China starts buying more oil and gas from Russia then it stops buying as much from the Middle East. America is I believe now the largest producer of at least some oil and gas products. The market is global. Also, while Russia is or would be happy to sell resources to China to fund the lifestyles of extremely wealthy dictators and murderers, Russia (the State) will always view China with some amount of healthy suspicion for geopolitical reasons. The fear you’re alluding to came and went with Cold War and the destruction of the Soviet Empire.
ChatGTP 3y ago
This sounds like a take by Peter Zeihan :)

RandomLensman 3y ago

Europe has a lot of shale gas it isn't using - it's a political decision.

cribbles 3y ago

If we limit this claim to _just_ German manufacturing competitiveness (which is often synonymous with "European manufacturing" in the context of these discussions -- and I will assume this is true of your comment as well, given the nuclear energy remark), this really isn't true. What changed my view on this was one of Adam Tooze's newsletters from last year.[1] The relevant points here are: - Germany manufacturing is less gas-intensive than the global average. - Energy costs only constitute a small and decreasing share of total industrial costs -- about 5.8% for the German manufacturing industry as a whole, and 3% for leading export sectors (namely the auto industry). - Most German manufacturing -- and this is true of European manufacturing more broadly -- is primarily in high-margin, value-added sectors where quality, rather than cost, are the competitive factor. Another important detail lost in the invocation of "cheap gas" is that Europe as a whole, and German in particular, has never had particularly "cheap gas." European natural gas prices have long been well above those in the US, and Germany's have been above the European average for the last 15 years or so. I agree with both Tooze and the majority view that, notwithstanding the above points, Germany's post-war energy policy has been a catastrophe. It has certainly limited its manufacturing potential. But the effect of the Ukrainian war on its _already_ limited manufacturing sector, due to _already_ not-so-cheap energy, tends to be exaggerated. [1] https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-150-why-cheap-russian-gas https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-150-why-cheap-rus...