4 ms·

The big loser in this war is Europe and other roil importing nations. The US is a major oil and has producer. It's benefiting from this war of aggression and n

The big loser in this war is Europe and other roil importing nations. The US is a major oil and has producer. It's benefiting from this war of aggression and not even taking any damage. Oil companies and arms manufacturers are having a bonanza. After the violence wracked 20th century I was hopeful the 21st century would be a bit more enlightened ...

bestouff 6mo ago
US oil producers will win yes, because the prices are going up and they can provide. But the US consumers will feel it badly.
nine_zeros 6mo ago
[dead]
cm2187 6mo ago
The US consumer will still pay more at the petrol station. Doesn't matter to them that some big oil companies are making a killing somewhere else in the US. US consumers vote.
- oefrha 6mo ago
  Hey, everyone benefits from the rise in GDP per capita due to oil companies and MIC making a killing. /s
  - kackerlacker 6mo ago
    [dead]
vrganj 6mo ago
Longer term Europe is positioned to come out of this looking pretty good. Renewables already surpass fossil fuel in the energy mix [0], this will only accelerate the shift to energy independence. It's countries that actively resisted diversifying their energy mix like the US that will feel the long term pain. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jan/22/wind-and-solar-overtook-fossil-fuels-in-power-generation-for-eu-in-2025-report https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jan/22/wind-and...
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
  I like your optimism. But I don't see the plan. The short-term impact is going to be nasty–regardless of trend, Europe depends on imported oil and gas. The same Europe that is currently financing an expensive military buildup. The answer is to strike a deal with China. Unfortunately, that requires compromising on some values. > countries that actively resisted diversifying their energy mix Rhetoric aside, America continues to add renewable capacity [1]. [1] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=67367 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=67367
  - vrganj 6mo ago
    I have long been advocating striking a deal with China. The US has been trying to sell out Europe to Russians in a misguided quest to win them over against the Chinese. The only reasonable reaction is a Metternichian rebalancing of powers.
    - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
      > only reasonable reaction is a Metternichian rebalancing of powers It's rational, but it comes at costs. (And with costs.) China would have to put a stop to Putin's revanchism. Otherwise, Europe is just financing its burial and subjugation. And the EU would have to sign off on China's human-right records, and, in all likelihood, Taiwan policy. That, in turn, sets up a clash with the rest of Asia.
      - vrganj 6mo ago
        That is pretty much my opinion as well.
    - metalman 6mo ago
      China is cutting two deals, one with themselves, and another with everybody else. They have one overriding rule which applys internaly and externaly, dont mess with the brand, ever ,or it will cost you more than you can pay. Also if you dig into things you will find that China has certain trade practises that they have been in place for 3000 years without a pause, and therein lies the only "deal" they will make. Another also is the recognition by China of modern Iran, bieng another "elder civilisation" that they have comonalities with but never had issue with.
pzo 6mo ago
> The big loser in this war is Europe and other roil importing nations. > The US is a major oil and has producer. US citizens are loosers as well since cost of oil increased for them as well. This will also have inflation impact on other products from them as well on top of previous tariffs.
- comrade1234 6mo ago
  It's "losers"
cogman10 6mo ago
> The US is a major oil and has producer. It's benefiting from this war of aggression and not even taking any damage. Oil companies are benefiting, everything else in the US suffers. Money isn't going to trickle out of these oil companies to spur economic activity. Nations that benefit from the war do so because of nationalized oil production. Any nation without that is going to ultimately suffer because that added oil revenue doesn't make it's way back to the public. All nations are going to look at increased food costs and potentially even shortages next year due to increased fertilizer and transport costs.
- measurablefunc 6mo ago
  It's not that simple. Production costs have gone up for everyone, inflation is going to get worse so the simple logic of "higher prices, higher profits" doesn't really work in this case.
  - cogman10 6mo ago
    There will be a short term long term thing with this. I agree with you that ultimately everyone loses long term. Short term the higher prices will result in higher profits which will enrich whoever owns the oil. We aren't at the end of the inflation, though, that's going to hit. This is only the beginning. Next year will be when things really go south. At this point it's not a question of if, but rather how bad.
    - measurablefunc 6mo ago
      I agree.
JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
> Europe and other roil importing nations Europe and Asia have been royally screwed by this war. Ironically, the winners are Russia, in absolute terms, and China, relative to its neighbors.
- vrganj 6mo ago
  Almost as if the US president was primarily pursuing Russian interests...
  - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
    > as if the US president was primarily pursuing Russian interests Comforting to imagine someone is in charge. But given the President's inability to even pursue his own interests coherently, I'm going with Putin got lucky on this dice roll.
    - vrganj 6mo ago
      I don't think Putin is in charge, but he sure is happy his patsy made it big.
- gib444 6mo ago
  > Ironically, the winners are Russia Where's the irony if that was the plan?
chinathrow 6mo ago
Time to get off if oil, like yesterday.
mmooss 6mo ago
> violence wracked 20th century After WWII, I believe it was one of the most peaceful times in human history. For one thing, the post-war order - the UN, EU, international law, etc. - effectively stopped international war (with a few exceptions). > 21st century Even more peaceful, though the prohibition against international war has been violated with the intent of returning to the pre-WWII world.
twodave 6mo ago
"Enlightenment" is for civilizations with enough might to enforce it.
graemep 6mo ago
The big loser is Asia. Heavily dependent on oil going through Hormuz. > After the violence wracked 20th century I was hopeful the 21st century would be a bit more enlightened People hope for that every century.
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
  > People hope for that every century And statistically speaking, we may have achieved it. At least since 1950, possibly since the Industrial Revolution, speculatively for millenia, war has become less lethal [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Natur...
  - graemep 6mo ago
    It is an interesting point, but I am not entirely convinced. In absolute numbers the last 100 years have been peak genocide. Of course given the much bigger global population it might well be better per capita. Even if you exclude the contested ones in this list its still a lot: https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=47580348&goto=threads%3Fid%3Dgraemep%2347580348 https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=47580348&goto=threads%... It also illustrates the capacity we have for mass murder. The long peace/new peace looks like a bit of historical luck, and increasingly so. The new peace came at time when, post cold war, the world was relatively stable under western dominance, and the west was less inclined to violence as a result of prosperity, the the lessons of the holocaust and WW2, etc. The rise of China (and other Asian powers over time) will make the world look very different. There were plenty smaller wars even during the "peace" period.
dlev_pika 6mo ago
> After the violence wracked 20th century I was hopeful the 21st century would be a bit more enlightened The Trump presidency feels like the dying tremors of imperialist, oligarchic, patriarchal IXX century leadership that resists to disappear. Like the other two septuagenarian boomer leaders blowing up shit across of the world - Putin and Bibi
orwin 6mo ago
Crude oil isn't as commoditized as LNG. Europe refineries (at least France, but probably most of Western Europe) are made to refine oil from Africa and the north sea, and wouldn't know what to do with ME oil anyway. Algeria or Libya can't suddenly sell their crude to asia or the US, because the refineries able to transform it are in europe. This will hit european countries that depends on LNG, but the impact on crude oil price in both the Texas index and the north sea index will be felt way less than in Asia. If you are talking about the refined product: it will hurt everyone the same, except the executives from big oil, and again, not that sure, because increased transportation/transformation costs decrease productivity, and we can enter a credit crunch that will harm debt-fueled economies pretty hard..
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- Ostrogoth 6mo ago
  The problem is European countries have been on a path towards reducing local refineries, and replaced with imports from Gulf States. ~50% of jet fuel, and up to ~25% of diesel was sourced from the Gulf States, which is now blockaded by the war or offline. Agree with you that refined products shortage will have the most economic impacts. Gulf States were also the global swing supplier of refined products, with ~20% of waterborne cargos. With Asian refineries (China/Japan/South Korea) also dependent on heavy/medium crude feedstock stuck in the Gulf, fuel production is getting hammered right now from both sides. Countries with local refining capacity will temporarily weather the storm a bit better, but with how interconnected global trade is, short fuel supply will impact everyone, even if its indirectly through higher costs of shipping/transportation/manufacturing/fertilizer, etc.
thatcat 6mo ago
Pretty sure the big losers are US missile intercept systems manufactures since they've basically been outed as useless so I'm not sure who would want to buy them now. And Israel, of course, who is getting struck as a result of their over reliance on these systems. US bases are being wrecked, all the radar systems are gone, several carriers damaged - not sure that is no damage.
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
  > losers are US missile intercept systems manufactures since they've basically been outed as useless What? How? Why do you think their order books are swelling?
  - thatcat 6mo ago
    Lockheed martin PAC3 manufacturer is down 11% this month.
    - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
      > Lockheed martin PAC3 manufacturer is down 11% this month Seriously? Lockheed Martin makes lots of stuff. They're blaming labor shortages for their woes. But demand for Patriots is growing. Your conclusion that they've been embarassed is countered by the dominant analysis in like every source, from Chinese and Indian (English and local language) to German, American, Israeli and Taiwanese. Patriot works. It's been shooting down Russia's "hypersonic" missiles. It's been intercepting everything Iran throws at it. Its problem is it's expensive, and Iran's munitions cheap; we need something that isn't built to take down stealth fighter jets and advanced missiles.
      - thatcat 6mo ago
        I mean even a cursory analysis will show that it's physically impossible for it to work against multiple vehicles/decoys. They also make the "stealth" f35, their contracts for this stuff is from Jan - probably will still make money from US/Saudi, but good luck selling to Germany or Japan.
enaaem 6mo ago
If the new status quo is that Iran will control the strait then te rest of the world will just pay toll to Iran.

bestouff 6mo ago

US oil producers will win yes, because the prices are going up and they can provide. But the US consumers will feel it badly.

nine_zeros 6mo ago

[dead]

cm2187 6mo ago

The US consumer will still pay more at the petrol station. Doesn't matter to them that some big oil companies are making a killing somewhere else in the US. US consumers vote.

oefrha 6mo ago
Hey, everyone benefits from the rise in GDP per capita due to oil companies and MIC making a killing. /s
- kackerlacker 6mo ago
  [dead]

vrganj 6mo ago

Longer term Europe is positioned to come out of this looking pretty good. Renewables already surpass fossil fuel in the energy mix [0], this will only accelerate the shift to energy independence. It's countries that actively resisted diversifying their energy mix like the US that will feel the long term pain. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jan/22/wind-and-solar-overtook-fossil-fuels-in-power-generation-for-eu-in-2025-report https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jan/22/wind-and...

JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
I like your optimism. But I don't see the plan. The short-term impact is going to be nasty–regardless of trend, Europe depends on imported oil and gas. The same Europe that is currently financing an expensive military buildup. The answer is to strike a deal with China. Unfortunately, that requires compromising on some values. > countries that actively resisted diversifying their energy mix Rhetoric aside, America continues to add renewable capacity [1]. [1] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=67367 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=67367
- vrganj 6mo ago
  I have long been advocating striking a deal with China. The US has been trying to sell out Europe to Russians in a misguided quest to win them over against the Chinese. The only reasonable reaction is a Metternichian rebalancing of powers.
  - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
    > only reasonable reaction is a Metternichian rebalancing of powers It's rational, but it comes at costs. (And with costs.) China would have to put a stop to Putin's revanchism. Otherwise, Europe is just financing its burial and subjugation. And the EU would have to sign off on China's human-right records, and, in all likelihood, Taiwan policy. That, in turn, sets up a clash with the rest of Asia.
    - vrganj 6mo ago
      That is pretty much my opinion as well.
  - metalman 6mo ago
    China is cutting two deals, one with themselves, and another with everybody else. They have one overriding rule which applys internaly and externaly, dont mess with the brand, ever ,or it will cost you more than you can pay. Also if you dig into things you will find that China has certain trade practises that they have been in place for 3000 years without a pause, and therein lies the only "deal" they will make. Another also is the recognition by China of modern Iran, bieng another "elder civilisation" that they have comonalities with but never had issue with.

pzo 6mo ago

> The big loser in this war is Europe and other roil importing nations. > The US is a major oil and has producer. US citizens are loosers as well since cost of oil increased for them as well. This will also have inflation impact on other products from them as well on top of previous tariffs.

comrade1234 6mo ago
It's "losers"

cogman10 6mo ago

> The US is a major oil and has producer. It's benefiting from this war of aggression and not even taking any damage. Oil companies are benefiting, everything else in the US suffers. Money isn't going to trickle out of these oil companies to spur economic activity. Nations that benefit from the war do so because of nationalized oil production. Any nation without that is going to ultimately suffer because that added oil revenue doesn't make it's way back to the public. All nations are going to look at increased food costs and potentially even shortages next year due to increased fertilizer and transport costs.

measurablefunc 6mo ago
It's not that simple. Production costs have gone up for everyone, inflation is going to get worse so the simple logic of "higher prices, higher profits" doesn't really work in this case.
- cogman10 6mo ago
  There will be a short term long term thing with this. I agree with you that ultimately everyone loses long term. Short term the higher prices will result in higher profits which will enrich whoever owns the oil. We aren't at the end of the inflation, though, that's going to hit. This is only the beginning. Next year will be when things really go south. At this point it's not a question of if, but rather how bad.
  - measurablefunc 6mo ago
    I agree.

JumpCrisscross 6mo ago

> Europe and other roil importing nations Europe and Asia have been royally screwed by this war. Ironically, the winners are Russia, in absolute terms, and China, relative to its neighbors.

vrganj 6mo ago
Almost as if the US president was primarily pursuing Russian interests...
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
  > as if the US president was primarily pursuing Russian interests Comforting to imagine someone is in charge. But given the President's inability to even pursue his own interests coherently, I'm going with Putin got lucky on this dice roll.
  - vrganj 6mo ago
    I don't think Putin is in charge, but he sure is happy his patsy made it big.
gib444 6mo ago
> Ironically, the winners are Russia Where's the irony if that was the plan?

chinathrow 6mo ago

Time to get off if oil, like yesterday.

mmooss 6mo ago

> violence wracked 20th century After WWII, I believe it was one of the most peaceful times in human history. For one thing, the post-war order - the UN, EU, international law, etc. - effectively stopped international war (with a few exceptions). > 21st century Even more peaceful, though the prohibition against international war has been violated with the intent of returning to the pre-WWII world.

twodave 6mo ago

"Enlightenment" is for civilizations with enough might to enforce it.

graemep 6mo ago

The big loser is Asia. Heavily dependent on oil going through Hormuz. > After the violence wracked 20th century I was hopeful the 21st century would be a bit more enlightened People hope for that every century.

JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
> People hope for that every century And statistically speaking, we may have achieved it. At least since 1950, possibly since the Industrial Revolution, speculatively for millenia, war has become less lethal [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Natur...
- graemep 6mo ago
  It is an interesting point, but I am not entirely convinced. In absolute numbers the last 100 years have been peak genocide. Of course given the much bigger global population it might well be better per capita. Even if you exclude the contested ones in this list its still a lot: https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=47580348&goto=threads%3Fid%3Dgraemep%2347580348 https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=47580348&goto=threads%... It also illustrates the capacity we have for mass murder. The long peace/new peace looks like a bit of historical luck, and increasingly so. The new peace came at time when, post cold war, the world was relatively stable under western dominance, and the west was less inclined to violence as a result of prosperity, the the lessons of the holocaust and WW2, etc. The rise of China (and other Asian powers over time) will make the world look very different. There were plenty smaller wars even during the "peace" period.

dlev_pika 6mo ago

> After the violence wracked 20th century I was hopeful the 21st century would be a bit more enlightened The Trump presidency feels like the dying tremors of imperialist, oligarchic, patriarchal IXX century leadership that resists to disappear. Like the other two septuagenarian boomer leaders blowing up shit across of the world - Putin and Bibi

orwin 6mo ago

Crude oil isn't as commoditized as LNG. Europe refineries (at least France, but probably most of Western Europe) are made to refine oil from Africa and the north sea, and wouldn't know what to do with ME oil anyway. Algeria or Libya can't suddenly sell their crude to asia or the US, because the refineries able to transform it are in europe. This will hit european countries that depends on LNG, but the impact on crude oil price in both the Texas index and the north sea index will be felt way less than in Asia. If you are talking about the refined product: it will hurt everyone the same, except the executives from big oil, and again, not that sure, because increased transportation/transformation costs decrease productivity, and we can enter a credit crunch that will harm debt-fueled economies pretty hard..

deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
Ostrogoth 6mo ago
The problem is European countries have been on a path towards reducing local refineries, and replaced with imports from Gulf States. ~50% of jet fuel, and up to ~25% of diesel was sourced from the Gulf States, which is now blockaded by the war or offline. Agree with you that refined products shortage will have the most economic impacts. Gulf States were also the global swing supplier of refined products, with ~20% of waterborne cargos. With Asian refineries (China/Japan/South Korea) also dependent on heavy/medium crude feedstock stuck in the Gulf, fuel production is getting hammered right now from both sides. Countries with local refining capacity will temporarily weather the storm a bit better, but with how interconnected global trade is, short fuel supply will impact everyone, even if its indirectly through higher costs of shipping/transportation/manufacturing/fertilizer, etc.

thatcat 6mo ago

Pretty sure the big losers are US missile intercept systems manufactures since they've basically been outed as useless so I'm not sure who would want to buy them now. And Israel, of course, who is getting struck as a result of their over reliance on these systems. US bases are being wrecked, all the radar systems are gone, several carriers damaged - not sure that is no damage.

JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
> losers are US missile intercept systems manufactures since they've basically been outed as useless What? How? Why do you think their order books are swelling?
- thatcat 6mo ago
  Lockheed martin PAC3 manufacturer is down 11% this month.
  - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
    > Lockheed martin PAC3 manufacturer is down 11% this month Seriously? Lockheed Martin makes lots of stuff. They're blaming labor shortages for their woes. But demand for Patriots is growing. Your conclusion that they've been embarassed is countered by the dominant analysis in like every source, from Chinese and Indian (English and local language) to German, American, Israeli and Taiwanese. Patriot works. It's been shooting down Russia's "hypersonic" missiles. It's been intercepting everything Iran throws at it. Its problem is it's expensive, and Iran's munitions cheap; we need something that isn't built to take down stealth fighter jets and advanced missiles.
    - thatcat 6mo ago
      I mean even a cursory analysis will show that it's physically impossible for it to work against multiple vehicles/decoys. They also make the "stealth" f35, their contracts for this stuff is from Jan - probably will still make money from US/Saudi, but good luck selling to Germany or Japan.

enaaem 6mo ago

If the new status quo is that Iran will control the strait then te rest of the world will just pay toll to Iran.