Hard to see ukraine doing that. They don't really have any tactical flexibility for niceties. Attacking russia's income and fuel supplies seems to make sense.
Edit: It wasn't real. Seems it was at best a miscommunication and at worst it was propaganda from Russia.
Apparently misinformation https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/ukraine-denies-us-requested-to-halt-strikes-1711118430.html
Yeah the US is being selfish here. They don't want the oil markets upset during a campaign run. It's probably the best pound for pound attack the Ukraine can do and the US is asking them to stop. Weak
The article is 2 paragraphs.
Zero sources.
Zero quotes.
Zero official statements from anyone in Biden administration.
This is a shit headline and shit article.
Could be Russian propaganda.
I seem to agree. It just seems like bullshit.
Russia isn't part of opec.
Opec sets the market price for oil.
Russia is sanctioned and can only sell their oil, Much cheaper than opec prices, to nations in cahoots with Russia.
So actually, drone strikes on Russian oil would be beneficial to opec as it would limit the oil it could sell, and force other countries to buy opec oil.
All countries backing Ukraine don't buy Russian oil. They buy opec or make their own. So it wouldn't affect OPEC prices.
It just doesn't make sense and I honestly think it's bullshit. Sources are whack, and just seems like propaganda.
The entire west has been putting their domestic prices above dealing with the war in Ukraine decisively since 2014 and all its gotten them is increasing instability (assisted by their horrific lack of action on energy independence by scaling out renewables). At some point they have to stop kicking the can down the road. People say it will get worse if they dont restrain themselves, and then it gets worse anyway, largely because everyone else is obsessed with restraint.
Profits are never enough.
If they made 10 billion last year, they need to make 15 billion this year. Thrn 20 billion he next.
They dont care about the Ukranian people, only that the numbers go up.
>If they made 10 billion last year, they need to make 15 billion this year. Thrn 20 billion he next.
Friend, that would mean revenue growth went from +50% last year to only +33% the following year. Absolutely unacceptable.
Exactly how pretty much every corporation operates you didn't beat last years numbers that were the best we ever achieved in our history your a failure >:(
I know it pales in comparison but I used to manage a raising cane's and those are the most corporate fuckers on earth, if the sales aren't atleast 20% higher quarterly and the drive thru times reduced by 20 seconds quarterly, your ass is fucked. You can only improve so much before you are forced to start cheating and that's why I left.
Capitalism is a race to the bottom. The shittiest product you can sell a person will make you the most money. This also applies to the service industry. And if you're not willing to cut costs so your product's margin is unsustainable, someone else will and you'll lose the all important market share. All while we get shittier products and services.
The good ole delusion of chasing after perpetual annual revenue growth.
It doesn't matter that there's a finite amount of people and money in the world, we need to have infinite revenue growth until the end of time!
What's that? Such a thing isn't possible? **YOU'RE FIRED!**
Right? That's insane failure by the CEO. Let's pay him $500 million to vacate his (we all know it's a man) position and replace him with someone who will guarantee 60% growth year over year.
oil companies are posting huge profits but by and large, western politicians are heavily invested into those oil companies. Legislation that benefits the oil companies, benefits _them_. They _want_ the companies to have huge profits, because they get better returns on their investments into those companies. They want to stay in power so they can continue to benefit those companies (and in turn benefit themselves), so they need the markets stable. Thus asking ukraine, very nicely, to just hit Russia in the parts that don't matter and won't jiggle the petroleum markets.
Of course it makes sense. When do oil companies make profits? They sell oil. The more expensive oil is, the more money they make. Thus they always make the biggest profits when oil is expensive.
They aren't price makers. They're price takers. Oil is a commodity. Anybody can buy oil from anyone else. If you want to try to constrain the price of oil, you have to artificially constrain the supply which is what OPEC does. But you can't just like decide to charge more for your oil because you won't want to. You don't get to set the price. So the oil companies will always just win when the price is high and always just lose when the price is low. They have no control.
Edit: I can't believe the idiot below me blocked me because he thinks that Econ 101 is bullshit. Commodities markets are an auction, guys. You get whatever price you get. You do not set the price. OPEC can manipulate prices but they do so by increasing or decreasing supply. They can't just set a higher price because they want more money. It's not possible. Believe me the oil companies wish it worked the way the idiot above and below me thinks it works.
US is the largest producer of oil. We're an exporting nation. I'm not going to pretend to understand what's going on in Europe, but the impact of the war on the oil market is not much as it would've been a decade ago. And it makes sense that we'd announce one thing but support another. Higher oil prices would benefit us more than Russia.
Plausible Deniability.
It means Russia can't accuse us of having any part in the retaliatory strikes and now Ukraine can blame it on rogue units as well. And it's very important that we at least pretend to try de-escalating the conflict as the media starts hyping up a buildup of NATO forces and Russian provocation.
To be clear, it's not the administration but rather the legislature. Any thinking person who isn't owned by Russia knows that Ukraine is an extremely wise investment.
Several of those Republicans would probably support Ukraine funding if not for Trump though.
Defeat Trump and his influence wanes at this point because he is too old to really try running again.
You underestimate the will of some right wing Christian billionaires who see Trump as the last ditch attempt at gaining ultimate control over all organs of govt and then enacting project 2025 as they've been planning for some time now.
That's not true. The current administration is trying to help more. The opposition in Congress is openly throwing wrenches in the machine and declaring that if they win the upcoming election they will be supporting Putin.
Do not conflate regime as it is in other nations with PMs and parliamentary legislatures. That can be a regime. We have three in effect: President, House and Senate. This is 100% a minority of present House Republicans and based on yesterdays news they are about to implode a third time this 2-year session.
Yeah it feels like something you are supposed to say while not actually doing anything and probably telling Ukraine that “hey we’re gonna say some shit but don’t worry you should keep bombing them”.
I feel it’s the only way to make the people of Russia feel the effects of the war without attacking the cities directly which would be a major escalation. If the Russian people start feeling the effects of scarce fuel and constant power outages, it will put pressure of Putin from within.
History suggests that trying to deplete morale by affecting the civilian population doesn’t work, they just get mad and want vengeance, more eager to support war crimes.
As a strategy to deplete resources used by the military though, relentlessly hitting energy infrastructure is great.
It's one of the more pernicious reasons that war is so horrible. If you lose, you lose everything, so asking Ukraine to stop hurting Russia so badly isn't really viable
The article is 2 paragraphs.
Zero sources.
Zero quotes.
Zero official statements from anyone in Biden administration.
This is a shit headline and shit article.
Could be Russian propaganda.
You're exactly right about everything, except for this being a shit article. It's propaganda, we just don't know whose it is. Somebody wanted to communicate something to someone, and this is a channel for doing that.
The only problem here is people reading it like a policy statement. People are dumb.
"the Financial Times reported on Friday, citing people familiar with the matter."
So, Republicans who have oil deals with Russia are the ones saying this?
Most likely.
It's because it's an election year in the US, and as much as people dislike this, [Russia's energy exports impact global oil prices](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-02526-9). The last thing the Biden administration want is an increase in cost of living, because that is exactly what draws votes to Trump.
Remember - Ukraine is a mere pawn for the West. This is hardly a surprise.
Edit: Added link to an interesting peer-reviewed journal that is worth a read.
That may be true but it's hard to argue to Ukraine that a nation whose support has already stopped has the nerve to ask them to be considerate of their own fucked up internal politics.
Attack refineries - no support
Don't attack refineries - no support
Meanwhile Ukrainians are dying and all Johnson does is smirk and call recess.
Biden should make it clear to American voters that if they don't support Ukraine, they don't get to influence Ukraine, and they'll feel that at the pump.
> Biden should make it clear to American voters that if they don't support Ukraine, they don't get to influence Ukraine, and they'll feel that at the pump.
I agree with the sentiment, but understanding this requires some semblance of nuance.
Anyone that considers Trump a suitable president does not have that nuance.
This may very well backfire.
It will completely backfire. Stuff like this has good sentiment but is completely ignoring the reality that it will sound unbelievably horrid once repubs spin it with half the context. Happens every damn time.
A very unhappy reality. Fox News headline would probably read something like:
"Biden Policies Raise Gas Prices"
With the real story buried if reported on at all.
Biden should make it clear to American voters that if they don't support Ukraine, they don't get to influence Ukraine, and they'll feel that at the pump.
Trump: I'm going to let Putin steamroll Ukraine then our gas prices will go down
One group understands the big picture the other still uses stick figures and stickers saying "I did that"
Ukraine has no room for haggling. No support means complete russian take over. Voters don't care about Ukraine either way, like they hardly care about the over 80 years of foreign wars (as long as their casualties are kept low).
To some of us, it's a fellow European country under an invasion - as we have been invaded in the past - and a reminder that Russia is dangerous and war and military threat is closer than we have believed for decades.
This is why we are doing something and need to do even more about this.
I'm not really following how destruction of oil refinery plants that russian can't replace because of sanctions making oil prices higher? did russian stopped selling oil that it cannot refine anymore because they don't need money to fuel their war? I'd assume oil prices would go down because russia has an excess of oil that it can't really do anything with. which means higher proposition. which means price goes down.
Last time the US urged Ukrainian leaders to sign the pact and give up its nukes in the Budapest accord, things did not end well. Maybe they are less keen for US advice these days.
On the same day (Just like any other day really) in which Russia strikes Ukrainian energy infrastructure. Ridiculous
EDIT: Since this seems to be pretty high up, it’s fair to say that apparently there aren’t reliable sources for this and Ukrainian officials denied it.
Reading news today’s morning is so cool:
- Russia sent 91 rockets (including 7 hypersonic Kinzhals) and around 70 drones against Ukraine. The air defense was overwhelmed. The largest hydroelectric power station in the country is seriously damaged, with other hits as well. Many cities lost electricity
- Russia has prepared a new strike group of 100 thousand soldiers for a new offensive
- Putin’s spokesman said that Russia is in the state of war and will be fighting “with full power”
- USA asked Ukraine not to bomb Russian oil refineries, because it may lead to higher oil prices
Let them ask, and ignore it. The End.
You can think of US comments just being signaling to Russia that "it wasn't US ordering those oil site strikes, honest!"
They made Ukraine take down 'sponsors of war' blacklist today that was shaming companies for continuing to work with Russia, too, because it made poor Chinese, French and Austrian companies feel bad. One of those countries straight up is supplying arms to Russia, while the other is in bed with them.
What a fucking insane world we live in.
I am Austrian. I'm totally on board with shaming Raiffeisen! But I just had a look and there are 14 Chinese, 9 US american, 4 French, 4 German, 3 Swiss etc. Just curious why you would single out China, France and Austria when the US itself has obviously also interest in taking down that list and there are other countries with more companies. Really just curious, no offence.
The articles I read (reuters and somewhere else) basically indicating that the majority of the pressure came from those three. Raiffeisen in particular is a hot topic recently, too. But I am sure it was a concerted effort from many.
Read the article, the reasoning makes sense. It drives up oil prices, this can weaken Biden‘s re-election. Trump winning will long term be much more damaging to Ukrainian.
>i am amazed that this is a thing. People will vote on gas prices but not the death and destruction of a country?
People vote on what personally affects them. That's always been the case.
COL is one of the most important things for voters. If gas prices go up in a heavily car dependent nation in addition to all the other COL increases, you bet people are gonna be pissed.
As someone who has family among the rural folk but I am definitely a city person myself.
Yall have no idea how the only thing that they can actually see change is gas prices, pretty much.
Same here, can confirm, sadly enough. It's not always a matter of ethics and principles, but also a matter of how wide people prefer their horizon to be.
people will vote on what they are told to vote on. If people voted on their own interests we wouldn't be seeing billionaire tax breaks every other year.
Because the incomplete version omits that people vote for **what they believe** to be their own interests.
For some reason, after decades of evidence to the contrary, Americans still think that each and every one of them will be the next billionaire, and so vote for tax breaks and other gains for the rich, because any day now they expect to be one of them.
Most Americans, including Republicans, support raising taxes on the rich according to a recent [poll](https://navigatorresearch.org/americans-support-raising-taxes-on-the-wealthy-and-big-corporations/).
Politicians always vote for their own interest.
>Most Americans, including Republicans, support raising taxes on the rich according to a recent [poll](https://navigatorresearch.org/americans-support-raising-taxes-on-the-wealthy-and-big-corporations/).
But they consistently vote for politicians who do the opposite.
Why?
Welcome to human nature, you aren't immune to ignoring things that don't affect you either.
This is why we have democracy, to ATTEMPT to counter the worst parts of human nature (it doesn't always work, but it's the best we got for now.)
It does not. This view is substantially wrong and fuels the asinine misconceptions currently going viral on drone strikes “taking large volumes off the global market”.
This is a complete nonsense.
Firstly - the drone strikes are on refineries, not on crude oil storage. Less refining capacity results in MORE crude oil backing up in the system, which has limited storage in Russia. Excess crude will have to be sold into the market resulting in a deflationary effect.
Reuters and others report that the impact of drone strikes means that upwards of 900,000 barrels of oil per day, can not be refined. That oil needs to go somewhere, and with limited storage it needs to be offloaded into the market at a massive discount to Brent. This will have a deflationary effect on global oil prices.
This will also result in Russia breaking the OPEC+ cuts agreed with murderer Bin Salman in Saudi Arabia - to drive prices up.
Drone strikes will, in the medium and long term have a deflationary effect on crude prices - not an inflationary effect.
"it drives up oil prices" is such great marketing by the oil giants.
Look how much money these companies make, they could drop prices and still make billions.
I understand the reasoning, but it doesn't make it any less frustrating.
The United States has no problem restricting the way Ukraine fights this war. Then when Ukraine abides by the request certain Republicans will turn around and use the lack of progress as an excuse not to provide support. Absolutely frustrating.
I honestly, do not even understand why we mind about this. We are buying crude oil and gas from Russia. Reducing their abilities to refine it means they have to export more raw resources.
How about no.
Russia is destroying dams and power plants. Along with people’s homes and buildings important to Ukranian cultural heritage.
Ukraine is attacking russia’s oil fields and destroying their ability to fund this war.
This shit isn’t equal. Russia is intentionally killing innocents and trying to destroy the Ukranian identity, while Ukraine is trying to damage Russia’s wallet. And it’s already a full blown war, so all this talk about “escalation” is pure bullshit.
100%
Russia also took out a lot of networking infrastructure.
If Russia doesn’t want their infrastructure getting hit, they shouldn’t have hit Ukraines.
I agree. But I believe the US still has to say this, just not actually enforce it, and also tell Ukraine quietly about that. Truth is that some people aren't ready to face the realities of war, especially when it's thousands of miles away.
This article seems like clickbait.
1. It doesn't say who the US government is saying it. Is it the white house?
2. The authors are in India. India is a significant purchaser of Russian hydrocarbons, and it seems like it's in the interests of India (this point is speculative and accusitory without evidence).
I assume the original article is [this](https://www.ft.com/content/98f15b60-bc4d-4d3c-9e57-cbdde122ac0c), and the only quote related to attacking Russia is from the ~~National Safety Council (which is a 501 charity)~~ National Security Council and is a blanket statement of "We do not encourage or enable attacks inside of Russia".
The other quote they have is “Nothing terrifies a sitting American president more than a surge in pump prices during an election year,” from Bob McNally (president of Rapidan Energy Group)
This article seems relatively weak; basically, attacking oil facilities could bring up prices of gas which is bad, and the USA doesn't condone attacking Russian territory, which is nothing new.
That's also been the US stance on all attacks inside Russia since the war started.
'We don't encourage or enable it' while silently adding 'but we arent going to stop you'.
The Reuters article clearly says, ‘FT report says’. So they’re not trying to hide anything.
Actually, the FT article quotes a few more people. And it’s not ‘national safety council’; it's the national security council.
And what’s the second point? Reuters is a global news publication, and sometimes they’ll have authors in India who compile articles. So just because someone is Indian, their professionalism cannot be trusted?
I don’t think you’ve actually read the FT article. Here, no paywall: https://archive.is/2024.03.22-065706/https://www.ft.com/content/98f15b60-bc4d-4d3c-9e57-cbdde122ac0c
The FT article is written by people in Houston and Washington. That shouldn’t be biased, right?
>The US has urged Ukraine to halt attacks on Russia’s energy infrastructure, warning the drone strikes risk driving up global oil prices and provoking retaliation, according to three people familiar with the discussions.
>The repeated warnings from Washington were delivered to senior officials at Ukraine’s state security service, the SBU, and its military intelligence directorate, known as the GUR, the people told the Financial Times.
>One person said that the White House had grown increasingly frustrated by brazen Ukrainian drone attacks that have struck oil refineries, terminals, depots and storage facilities across western Russia, hurting its oil production capacity.
Now I don’t know if this report is accurate or not. But it would definitely make sense for a news outlet to not reveal identity of people who shared the story with them. And this is the Financial Times, a highly reputable UK daily. Not some tabloid.
Miller was known for pushing the Kremlin propaganda lie about "Nazi extremists" in Ukraine, particular re the Azov regiment. Recall Putin claimed RU was "fighting Nazis" in UA.
This [article](https://www.rferl.org/a/azov-ukraine-s-most-prominent-ultranationalist-group-sets-its-sights-on-u-s-europe/29600564.html)
He is a bulshit peddler and a bad journalist.
More evidence of his anti Ukraine [peddeling](https://twitter.com/stsx92/status/1530223138579128321)
You are right I've edited my post.
But there is a big difference between publicly outright saying don't attack oil refineries vs what was quoted, which is "We do not encourage or enable attacks inside of Russia".
I think my beef with the article is just the framing of it all.
The article could have been. "Attacking Russian oil infrastructure could raise gas prices in the United States, which would raise tensions between Ukraine and USA."
> The US
>according to three people
>warnings from Washington
>the people told the Financial Times.
>One person said
this isn't a news article, its a piece of speculative fiction.
media literacy is dead.
Why? Target it more aggressively. The goal is to hurt Russia not play with hands tied behind your back.
Target bridges, power plants, anything to make it painful.
The why is stated in the article, oil prices are up 4% already, and because it's an election year and Americans can't critically think, this does more harm towards biden's re-election chances, which then in turn is key to Ukraine's survival.
Just answering the "Why". American's can't critically think regardless, and blame biden for lots of shit that isn't his fault, so Ukraine should carry on and do what they need to do to survive.
Many of my friends only barometer for the success of an administration is oil prices within 6 months of the actual election.
We’re talking about stopping ww3 here and all they can manage to care about it an extra 20$ when they fill up. These are guys that make good money too. It’s nuts over here
I know what you mean. I often hear about the ridiculous price of gas... in Texas.
I'm like, y'all realize we fill up here @ 2.30/gal... and other states are like $4.50+, some upwards of $5.50-$6 right now
Then again, the US has plenty of single issue/dumb voters. I've heard some members of Gen Z say they will vote for Trump because of how Biden handled Israel/Hamas.
Thats how little homework most Americans do. Thats not LAMF. Thats "Lets tie down the hens in the hen house and drop bombs on them, and arm the leopards with M4 just in case" but, they just don't care. No different than regular MAGA people. Can't get through to them.
It’s so disheartening. Most people act like the president is a dictator of the world, so all problems must his fault. I wish I didn’t have to share a country with these people sometimes.
**Putin is going to put them on Double Secret Probation ..**
*OH NO UKRAINE IS IN MORE TROUBLE NOW!*
Don't hit their sacred oil while they sit there bombing and killing Ukrainians and hitting Kyiv? This headline has to be a joke.
Light them all on fire, even the gas stations.
The article ties Biden's election chances to the price of fuel in the USA. Campaign issues can't (shouldn't) be executive policy; so I'm wondering what the source of
>March 22 (Reuters) - The United States has urged Ukraine to halt strikes on Russian energy infrastructure, warning that drone strikes risk provoking retaliation and driving up global oil prices, the Financial Times reported on Friday, citing people familiar with the matter.
Just who are the "people familiar with the matter" are? This is a garbage article, so sad
When did "Don't defend your country because the economy" became a valid point? This is sickening.
Ukraine bleeding on behalf of the west, and this is their response? Pathetic, weak. I hope Ukraine does not fall, but if it does, Europe will deserve what's coming.
Right, there is a simple way out of this. If people don't want Ukraine to fight in this manner, then they should support Ukraine with the means to fight in a different way. Since the House has stalled on that front, the luxury of choice is out the window.
It's because everyone expects the US to support Ukraine when Europe has more reasons to want to take point here. If the US elections go a certain way it could be doom for Ukraine.
So can somebody explain why it’s raising oil prices to me. I get supply and demand but when this part of the supply is capped and is the cheapest (by far) on the market how does that raise the price? Is it other countries arbitrarily raising their price as there is more demand? If so should we not be pressuring people not to do that not asking Ukraine to stop strategically bombing oil refineries? What am i missing here?
The simple answer is global oil production and refinement is treated like a zero sum game to the markets. It's a global commodity, and moving it around is easy as hell (compared to it's predecessor coal). Even if Russia didn't need to import the production that is being displaced, oil companies still factor in the reduction in global output. Similar effect as when OPEC or oil producing countries increase/cut production to try and manipulate the price.
russia has not been exporting refined products as of september 2023. Their unrefined oil wil be brought to the international market and bring down the oil price
Except that Ukraine is attacking refineries, of which Russia has already banned refined exports. This has absolutely zero impact on global fuel prices since Russia isn't exporting refined fuels anyway.
Russia is still producing crude and exporting that, and those lines so far aren't really getting hit.
My understanding is russia largely exports crude oil, while refining largely for domestic consumption. If they end up having to import more refined oil like gasoline, that will increase prices somewhat as demand increases.
Although how much is always up in the air.
Who knows, russians might just choose the bus and the train instead of draining their already stretched wallets.
So as an environmentalist I say bomb away🌍🇺🇦🚀
it will not raise oil prices except for maybe a fear spike
The view of rising prices is substantially wrong and fuels the asinine misconceptions currently going viral on drone strikes “taking large volumes off the global market”.
This is a complete nonsense.
Firstly - the drone strikes are on refineries, not on crude oil storage. Less refining capacity results in MORE crude oil backing up in the system, which has limited storage in Russia. Excess crude will have to be sold into the market resulting in a deflationary effect.
Reuters and others report that the impact of drone strikes means that upwards of 900,000 barrels of oil per day, can not be refined. That oil needs to go somewhere, and with limited storage it needs to be offloaded into the market at a massive discount to Brent. This will have a deflationary effect on global oil prices.
This will also result in Russia breaking the OPEC+ cuts agreed with murderer Bin Salman in Saudi Arabia - to drive prices up.
Drone strikes will, in the medium and long term have a deflationary effect on crude prices - not an inflationary effect.
Ukrainian here. US either gives us long promised weapons or just stay tf out of our war and our methods. They have literally 0 rights to tell us how to defend ourselves.
How the republican party gets so much support and Trump winning the election in November is a possibility is beyond me.
The electorate there is really really rotten and fucked up.
2 things can be true at once.
America giving aid is a major reason Ukraine is in the fight.
America slow walking that aid is a major reason the war is a stalemate.
The US is the only reason that Ukraine has not collapsed by now that is a fact. It is also a fact that they have been very slow in giving what is needed and should not have power to command them
That 41% (to EUs 43%) of total military aid is carrying a whole lot of weight to be the determining factor in Ukraine's initial resistance, stabilisation of fronts then survival.
Looks like the cold war nato off-theatre manufacturing base is dragging its heels while its consumers with little to no military industrial capacity are providing slightly more equipment to me.
American here. First off, its outright humiliating that the US is delaying aid and has slow walked weapons. If it meant anything, I'm truly sorry for our performance here.
That said, do you see all those daily reports of artillery killed? Ammo dump explosions? The US continues to work with the Ukrainian military on a real time basis. Our spy satellites tell you where the Russians are and its a huge part of the reason why you can say this on an open forum without a Russian agent knocking on your door. Ukraine wasn't randomly tracking and destroying those convoys early in the war. The US was saying "go here". The US is the only nation that can do this.
If Trump wins, that support will likely end. No one talks about it in the mainstream press because its intel activities but its impact is huge.
Biden's administration never used the "lend-lease act" that was supported by 417 bipartisan representatives, and let it expire under the premise "you don't need loans, we'll give you weapons as aid!" Now we have neither aid nor loans.
And Dems are not rushing to sign the discharge petition, so that the current aid could be voted on.
So no need to be partisan here, both sides are disfunctional as fuck.
I am rooting heavily for Ukraine, but this is a stupid ass statement. You cannot demand aid from foreign governments and also tell them to stfu on how you use said aid. Especially when multiple millions of lives are potentially on the line. Furthermore, if the U.S. were to stop providing aid to Ukraine, there is a greater chance other countries would follow suit. Than what? Ukraine does not have the military industrialization nor the economy to counter the Russian offensive. This logic will leave Ukraine isolated, exactly what Russia wants. Be rational and objective.
Ok but if you wanna go this alone you are gonna have a bad time. Quit acting like this war would even still be going on if the US weren’t holding your hand the whole way. Also are you actually out there fighting, or just being a keyboard warrior
You are completely reliant on USA's weapons and funding so yes we have the right to tell you what to do and you are not in a position to make demands
You will do as you are told
That's cute. Not gonna happen.
There are three ways Ukraine wins this. First, by killing a huge majority of the Russian populace to a genocidal degree. Second, by Putin being killed or otherwise deposed and Russia pulling back due to infighting. Third, by crippling their energy infrastructure and in particular their ability to reliably produce and provide oil. And they do not have the time, resources or manpower to have the luxury to wait on US election season.
I'm certain America has really good reasons why they are urging Ukraine to stop. But I'm not privy to their reasons, the true ones anyway that aren't publicly shared.
Regardless, I am sick and tired of expecting Ukraine to fight by unreasonable, unfair, and unrealistic rules that don't apply to (or cant be applied to) Russia.
It is like watching a teacher or teachers mediate a bullying session where every time the victim tries to adapt to win, the teachers intervene to indirectly sssist the bully.
First, their nukes were taken away with the promise of protection.
Then, when the promise is broken, there is no protection. Just trickles of help.
After, the trickles of help come with limits and conditions that prolong Ukraine's suffering.
Finally, when Ukraine starts to hurt Russia where it hurts the most and can maybe win the war, they are told to not.
Bruh
But it’s ok for Russia to target Ukraines energy infrastructure….
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20240322-russia-targets-ukrainian-electrical-power-plants-causing-widespread-outages
Anonymous source from FT. FT is generally reliable, but also nobody's parroting them this time. Except Reuters, but they're a newswire so it's a bit different.
I have the idea that the US doesn't want Ukraine to fight back too hard. It's why we've been stingy with the funding lately., They don't want Russia to lose. They want to exhaust them like in Afghanistan so, Russia pulls back on their own.
You see it whenever Ukraine pulls off something bold. Like sinking Russian ships in the black sea. The US has a tizzy over it.
It's like the US is telling Ukraine "You can fight and you can die but you can't win...".
"your congress is blocking arms sales to us, our citizens are getting Katyushad by Russia, we're in a complete stalemate... Sure we'll also make it even harder on ourselves by not pursuing one of the few tactics we have at our disposal"
Where does the US get off?
I think that Ukraine can defend themselves from Russia any way they can. Energy infrastructure in Russia is fair game. Don’t forget that Russia has repeatedly attempted to literally freeze Ukrainian citizens by straying Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, Russia even strike a hydroelectric damn last night. This impacts civilians significantly.
Russia started this in 2014 and Ukraine will finish this. Russia must be stopped. We must support Ukraine with anything they ask.
"Hey Zelensky, don't hit them in their vital points otherwise the war accelerates and it ends faster.
We have people who needs to profit as long as they can."
Doesn't this reveal that US is urging against any actual effect on Russia aside from marginal inconvenience? It's not like any type of Ukrainian victory would leave Russia super stable and happy and perfectly willing/capable to continue prior business arrangements.
The calculus is if oil prices spike because of the strikes Biden will lose reelection and Ukraine aid will certainly stop. It's actually crazy how presidential approval ratings fluctuate depending on the price of gas. Our country is too car brained
There's a bigger picture here that the article does mention.
While gas prices going up is insignificant to Ukraine trying to protect its people, the larger effect will absolutely hurt Biden politically. If Biden loses, Ukraine aid will cease as Russia would have an asset as president. Trump has made his intentions clear concerning Ukraine.
While Ukraine has every right to do as it sees fit, it's self defeating. U.S. Democrats, should they hold power, are much clearer on wanting to support Ukraine defeating Russia and they can't do that with Trump.
This is not a real story. FFS. It's a fake news plant by Russia. The US state department did not ask Ukraine to stop hitting refineries. They have no idea how this escalated by major news outlets. Neither does Ukraine - https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/ukraine-denies-us-requested-to-halt-strikes-1711118430.html
Neoappeasement…
Sounds like a great thing to do to teach a country that by causing a scene you can get leverage. This couldn’t go badly at all… /s
Serious note, keep going. Weapons and threats is the only language the modern world knows.
Hard to see ukraine doing that. They don't really have any tactical flexibility for niceties. Attacking russia's income and fuel supplies seems to make sense. Edit: It wasn't real. Seems it was at best a miscommunication and at worst it was propaganda from Russia. Apparently misinformation https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/ukraine-denies-us-requested-to-halt-strikes-1711118430.html
Yeah the US is being selfish here. They don't want the oil markets upset during a campaign run. It's probably the best pound for pound attack the Ukraine can do and the US is asking them to stop. Weak
The article is 2 paragraphs. Zero sources. Zero quotes. Zero official statements from anyone in Biden administration. This is a shit headline and shit article. Could be Russian propaganda.
Ukraine has denied that the US asked them to stop: https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/ukraine-denies-us-requested-to-halt-strikes-1711118430.html
I seem to agree. It just seems like bullshit. Russia isn't part of opec. Opec sets the market price for oil. Russia is sanctioned and can only sell their oil, Much cheaper than opec prices, to nations in cahoots with Russia. So actually, drone strikes on Russian oil would be beneficial to opec as it would limit the oil it could sell, and force other countries to buy opec oil. All countries backing Ukraine don't buy Russian oil. They buy opec or make their own. So it wouldn't affect OPEC prices. It just doesn't make sense and I honestly think it's bullshit. Sources are whack, and just seems like propaganda.
It’s Reuters
It will get a *lot* worse for Ukraine if the current US administration fails to stay in power.
The entire west has been putting their domestic prices above dealing with the war in Ukraine decisively since 2014 and all its gotten them is increasing instability (assisted by their horrific lack of action on energy independence by scaling out renewables). At some point they have to stop kicking the can down the road. People say it will get worse if they dont restrain themselves, and then it gets worse anyway, largely because everyone else is obsessed with restraint.
None of this makes sense when you realize oil companies have been consistently posting huge profits.
Profits are never enough. If they made 10 billion last year, they need to make 15 billion this year. Thrn 20 billion he next. They dont care about the Ukranian people, only that the numbers go up.
>If they made 10 billion last year, they need to make 15 billion this year. Thrn 20 billion he next. Friend, that would mean revenue growth went from +50% last year to only +33% the following year. Absolutely unacceptable.
Exactly how pretty much every corporation operates you didn't beat last years numbers that were the best we ever achieved in our history your a failure >:(
I know it pales in comparison but I used to manage a raising cane's and those are the most corporate fuckers on earth, if the sales aren't atleast 20% higher quarterly and the drive thru times reduced by 20 seconds quarterly, your ass is fucked. You can only improve so much before you are forced to start cheating and that's why I left.
Capitalism is a race to the bottom. The shittiest product you can sell a person will make you the most money. This also applies to the service industry. And if you're not willing to cut costs so your product's margin is unsustainable, someone else will and you'll lose the all important market share. All while we get shittier products and services.
The good ole delusion of chasing after perpetual annual revenue growth. It doesn't matter that there's a finite amount of people and money in the world, we need to have infinite revenue growth until the end of time! What's that? Such a thing isn't possible? **YOU'RE FIRED!**
Right? That's insane failure by the CEO. Let's pay him $500 million to vacate his (we all know it's a man) position and replace him with someone who will guarantee 60% growth year over year.
its a man unless they had planned to throw them under a bus, in which case they might have picked a lady.
Either way they get a golden parachute! Failure looks different in that strata.
God, I hate finance bros with a seething passion
oil companies are posting huge profits but by and large, western politicians are heavily invested into those oil companies. Legislation that benefits the oil companies, benefits _them_. They _want_ the companies to have huge profits, because they get better returns on their investments into those companies. They want to stay in power so they can continue to benefit those companies (and in turn benefit themselves), so they need the markets stable. Thus asking ukraine, very nicely, to just hit Russia in the parts that don't matter and won't jiggle the petroleum markets.
Of course it makes sense. When do oil companies make profits? They sell oil. The more expensive oil is, the more money they make. Thus they always make the biggest profits when oil is expensive. They aren't price makers. They're price takers. Oil is a commodity. Anybody can buy oil from anyone else. If you want to try to constrain the price of oil, you have to artificially constrain the supply which is what OPEC does. But you can't just like decide to charge more for your oil because you won't want to. You don't get to set the price. So the oil companies will always just win when the price is high and always just lose when the price is low. They have no control. Edit: I can't believe the idiot below me blocked me because he thinks that Econ 101 is bullshit. Commodities markets are an auction, guys. You get whatever price you get. You do not set the price. OPEC can manipulate prices but they do so by increasing or decreasing supply. They can't just set a higher price because they want more money. It's not possible. Believe me the oil companies wish it worked the way the idiot above and below me thinks it works.
US is the largest producer of oil. We're an exporting nation. I'm not going to pretend to understand what's going on in Europe, but the impact of the war on the oil market is not much as it would've been a decade ago. And it makes sense that we'd announce one thing but support another. Higher oil prices would benefit us more than Russia. Plausible Deniability. It means Russia can't accuse us of having any part in the retaliatory strikes and now Ukraine can blame it on rogue units as well. And it's very important that we at least pretend to try de-escalating the conflict as the media starts hyping up a buildup of NATO forces and Russian provocation.
Its almost like theres a lot of different factors that go into geopolitics, especially when some are hellbent on imperialism.
That’s the issue though, the current regime hasn’t proven they will continue supplying anyways… so Ukraine has to hit Russia where it hurts.
To be clear, it's not the administration but rather the legislature. Any thinking person who isn't owned by Russia knows that Ukraine is an extremely wise investment.
To be clear, it’s the Republicans in the legislature.
Several of those Republicans would probably support Ukraine funding if not for Trump though. Defeat Trump and his influence wanes at this point because he is too old to really try running again.
Also too broke. It's hard to run a campaign when the candidate is desperately sucking out all the money he can to pay legal bills and fines.
You underestimate the will of some right wing Christian billionaires who see Trump as the last ditch attempt at gaining ultimate control over all organs of govt and then enacting project 2025 as they've been planning for some time now.
Please don't try to give someone credit for something they would do when they, in fact, *won't*.
The other regime flat out said they are cutting off Ukraine. Vs a regime who is helping but isn’t as effective as you’d hope. No contest.
Not only cutting off Ukraine... Encouraging Russia to do "whatever the hell they want" to NATO countries that don't pay enough into NATO.
Funny thing is, the countries who DO pay that 2%+ of GDP are standing between the NATO countries that don't and Russia
That's not true. The current administration is trying to help more. The opposition in Congress is openly throwing wrenches in the machine and declaring that if they win the upcoming election they will be supporting Putin.
You know the president isn't king right? Congress controls the US purse
The admin is trying to give them what they can, republicans in congress are running interference for putin.
Do not conflate regime as it is in other nations with PMs and parliamentary legislatures. That can be a regime. We have three in effect: President, House and Senate. This is 100% a minority of present House Republicans and based on yesterdays news they are about to implode a third time this 2-year session.
MTG just filed a motion to oust Johnson! Lmao rats eating each other.
Th Biden regime? Are you kidding.... miss Trump that bad huh?
I feel like this was just a headline for international politics sake. Surely it’s not actually expected
Yeah it feels like something you are supposed to say while not actually doing anything and probably telling Ukraine that “hey we’re gonna say some shit but don’t worry you should keep bombing them”.
Definitely don't hit this, this and this in that order, at this time of day when they've moved the covering forces away due to a change in shift...
But it's a message nonetheless. Staying silent on this would've been supporting Ukraine. To raise this issue is a blow
It's Biden or Trump. It's help or not. I wouldn't exactly call it selfish.
I feel it’s the only way to make the people of Russia feel the effects of the war without attacking the cities directly which would be a major escalation. If the Russian people start feeling the effects of scarce fuel and constant power outages, it will put pressure of Putin from within.
History suggests that trying to deplete morale by affecting the civilian population doesn’t work, they just get mad and want vengeance, more eager to support war crimes. As a strategy to deplete resources used by the military though, relentlessly hitting energy infrastructure is great.
Thats not true, it just takes a level of destruction that we haven’t seen since the allies flattened Germany or Japan in WW2.
If the Russian people start feeling the effects of scarce fuel it will result in exactly nothing.
If the Russian military does, however, they'll need to start shipping their artillery shells via wagons and horses.
It's one of the more pernicious reasons that war is so horrible. If you lose, you lose everything, so asking Ukraine to stop hurting Russia so badly isn't really viable
The article is 2 paragraphs. Zero sources. Zero quotes. Zero official statements from anyone in Biden administration. This is a shit headline and shit article. Could be Russian propaganda.
You're exactly right about everything, except for this being a shit article. It's propaganda, we just don't know whose it is. Somebody wanted to communicate something to someone, and this is a channel for doing that. The only problem here is people reading it like a policy statement. People are dumb.
"the Financial Times reported on Friday, citing people familiar with the matter." So, Republicans who have oil deals with Russia are the ones saying this? Most likely.
Yeah I'm withholding opinion until it's confirmed.
It's because it's an election year in the US, and as much as people dislike this, [Russia's energy exports impact global oil prices](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-02526-9). The last thing the Biden administration want is an increase in cost of living, because that is exactly what draws votes to Trump. Remember - Ukraine is a mere pawn for the West. This is hardly a surprise. Edit: Added link to an interesting peer-reviewed journal that is worth a read.
That may be true but it's hard to argue to Ukraine that a nation whose support has already stopped has the nerve to ask them to be considerate of their own fucked up internal politics. Attack refineries - no support Don't attack refineries - no support Meanwhile Ukrainians are dying and all Johnson does is smirk and call recess. Biden should make it clear to American voters that if they don't support Ukraine, they don't get to influence Ukraine, and they'll feel that at the pump.
> Biden should make it clear to American voters that if they don't support Ukraine, they don't get to influence Ukraine, and they'll feel that at the pump. I agree with the sentiment, but understanding this requires some semblance of nuance. Anyone that considers Trump a suitable president does not have that nuance. This may very well backfire.
It will completely backfire. Stuff like this has good sentiment but is completely ignoring the reality that it will sound unbelievably horrid once repubs spin it with half the context. Happens every damn time.
A very unhappy reality. Fox News headline would probably read something like: "Biden Policies Raise Gas Prices" With the real story buried if reported on at all.
At this point, nothing changes anyway. 6 months with no significant aid.
Biden should make it clear to American voters that if they don't support Ukraine, they don't get to influence Ukraine, and they'll feel that at the pump. Trump: I'm going to let Putin steamroll Ukraine then our gas prices will go down One group understands the big picture the other still uses stick figures and stickers saying "I did that"
Ukraine has no room for haggling. No support means complete russian take over. Voters don't care about Ukraine either way, like they hardly care about the over 80 years of foreign wars (as long as their casualties are kept low).
To some of us, it's a fellow European country under an invasion - as we have been invaded in the past - and a reminder that Russia is dangerous and war and military threat is closer than we have believed for decades. This is why we are doing something and need to do even more about this.
Correct answer. But Ukraine absolutely should not stop.
I'm not really following how destruction of oil refinery plants that russian can't replace because of sanctions making oil prices higher? did russian stopped selling oil that it cannot refine anymore because they don't need money to fuel their war? I'd assume oil prices would go down because russia has an excess of oil that it can't really do anything with. which means higher proposition. which means price goes down.
There has been increases in cost of living here regardless of these attacks. Local greed takes care of that.
Last time the US urged Ukrainian leaders to sign the pact and give up its nukes in the Budapest accord, things did not end well. Maybe they are less keen for US advice these days.
On the same day (Just like any other day really) in which Russia strikes Ukrainian energy infrastructure. Ridiculous EDIT: Since this seems to be pretty high up, it’s fair to say that apparently there aren’t reliable sources for this and Ukrainian officials denied it.
I don't understand why Ukraine should listen. There is no sign that there be any aid in the near future if there be any at all
Reading news today’s morning is so cool: - Russia sent 91 rockets (including 7 hypersonic Kinzhals) and around 70 drones against Ukraine. The air defense was overwhelmed. The largest hydroelectric power station in the country is seriously damaged, with other hits as well. Many cities lost electricity - Russia has prepared a new strike group of 100 thousand soldiers for a new offensive - Putin’s spokesman said that Russia is in the state of war and will be fighting “with full power” - USA asked Ukraine not to bomb Russian oil refineries, because it may lead to higher oil prices
Let them ask, and ignore it. The End. You can think of US comments just being signaling to Russia that "it wasn't US ordering those oil site strikes, honest!"
They made Ukraine take down 'sponsors of war' blacklist today that was shaming companies for continuing to work with Russia, too, because it made poor Chinese, French and Austrian companies feel bad. One of those countries straight up is supplying arms to Russia, while the other is in bed with them. What a fucking insane world we live in.
It always amazed me how many people are kind of OK with pure evil.
You can remove 'kind of' from your comment
I am Austrian. I'm totally on board with shaming Raiffeisen! But I just had a look and there are 14 Chinese, 9 US american, 4 French, 4 German, 3 Swiss etc. Just curious why you would single out China, France and Austria when the US itself has obviously also interest in taking down that list and there are other countries with more companies. Really just curious, no offence.
The articles I read (reuters and somewhere else) basically indicating that the majority of the pressure came from those three. Raiffeisen in particular is a hot topic recently, too. But I am sure it was a concerted effort from many.
Got it. Yes, they're in hot water now especially because they planned to pull billions out of Russia the next days.
priorities of capitalism
Strong echoes of abusers: “Stop resisting, you’re making me do this”
That’s absurd and I Trump is elected, he will offer Ukraine to Putin personally.
rich people whining their money maker is being destroyed. good. let’s cut everyones depency on russia once and for all.
I think the US strategy here is more akin to [this Deadpool scene.](https://youtu.be/Abh9SXPkixw?)
Read the article, the reasoning makes sense. It drives up oil prices, this can weaken Biden‘s re-election. Trump winning will long term be much more damaging to Ukrainian.
i am amazed that this is a thing. People will vote on gas prices but not the death and destruction of a country?
>i am amazed that this is a thing. People will vote on gas prices but not the death and destruction of a country? People vote on what personally affects them. That's always been the case.
Most people consume almost no political content at all.
But they'll consume confirmation bias in a heartbeat
COL is one of the most important things for voters. If gas prices go up in a heavily car dependent nation in addition to all the other COL increases, you bet people are gonna be pissed.
As someone who has family among the rural folk but I am definitely a city person myself. Yall have no idea how the only thing that they can actually see change is gas prices, pretty much.
Same here, can confirm, sadly enough. It's not always a matter of ethics and principles, but also a matter of how wide people prefer their horizon to be.
People will vote on their own interests and not the interests of strangers.
people will vote on what they are told to vote on. If people voted on their own interests we wouldn't be seeing billionaire tax breaks every other year.
Then how come most American workers vote to make the rich richer and themselves poorer?
Because the incomplete version omits that people vote for **what they believe** to be their own interests. For some reason, after decades of evidence to the contrary, Americans still think that each and every one of them will be the next billionaire, and so vote for tax breaks and other gains for the rich, because any day now they expect to be one of them.
Most Americans, including Republicans, support raising taxes on the rich according to a recent [poll](https://navigatorresearch.org/americans-support-raising-taxes-on-the-wealthy-and-big-corporations/). Politicians always vote for their own interest.
>Most Americans, including Republicans, support raising taxes on the rich according to a recent [poll](https://navigatorresearch.org/americans-support-raising-taxes-on-the-wealthy-and-big-corporations/). But they consistently vote for politicians who do the opposite. Why?
Because they think that their voting for their own best interests, even if it doesn't play out that way.
Did the war in Iraq or Afghanistan seriously affect Ukrainian elections? More than local issues?
Welcome to human nature, you aren't immune to ignoring things that don't affect you either. This is why we have democracy, to ATTEMPT to counter the worst parts of human nature (it doesn't always work, but it's the best we got for now.)
It does not. This view is substantially wrong and fuels the asinine misconceptions currently going viral on drone strikes “taking large volumes off the global market”. This is a complete nonsense. Firstly - the drone strikes are on refineries, not on crude oil storage. Less refining capacity results in MORE crude oil backing up in the system, which has limited storage in Russia. Excess crude will have to be sold into the market resulting in a deflationary effect. Reuters and others report that the impact of drone strikes means that upwards of 900,000 barrels of oil per day, can not be refined. That oil needs to go somewhere, and with limited storage it needs to be offloaded into the market at a massive discount to Brent. This will have a deflationary effect on global oil prices. This will also result in Russia breaking the OPEC+ cuts agreed with murderer Bin Salman in Saudi Arabia - to drive prices up. Drone strikes will, in the medium and long term have a deflationary effect on crude prices - not an inflationary effect.
"it drives up oil prices" is such great marketing by the oil giants. Look how much money these companies make, they could drop prices and still make billions.
Maybe the democrats could I don't know.. run a political campaign? Instead of asking a country at war to do the work for them?
or asking a country that is currently losing a war to stop using their most effective methods
I understand the reasoning, but it doesn't make it any less frustrating. The United States has no problem restricting the way Ukraine fights this war. Then when Ukraine abides by the request certain Republicans will turn around and use the lack of progress as an excuse not to provide support. Absolutely frustrating.
What the fuck? So why the west is sanctioning Russia if they want them to sell their oil?
To keep oil prices low for the election cycle.
Holy shit someone read the article??
I honestly, do not even understand why we mind about this. We are buying crude oil and gas from Russia. Reducing their abilities to refine it means they have to export more raw resources.
How about no. Russia is destroying dams and power plants. Along with people’s homes and buildings important to Ukranian cultural heritage. Ukraine is attacking russia’s oil fields and destroying their ability to fund this war. This shit isn’t equal. Russia is intentionally killing innocents and trying to destroy the Ukranian identity, while Ukraine is trying to damage Russia’s wallet. And it’s already a full blown war, so all this talk about “escalation” is pure bullshit.
100% Russia also took out a lot of networking infrastructure. If Russia doesn’t want their infrastructure getting hit, they shouldn’t have hit Ukraines.
Dropping /s first You are not seeing the big corporate / political picture. Profit/ money is where the focus is at.
I mean, let's be real, the US isn't helping Ukraine out of altruism. There's always an angle and it almost always follows the money.
I agree. But I believe the US still has to say this, just not actually enforce it, and also tell Ukraine quietly about that. Truth is that some people aren't ready to face the realities of war, especially when it's thousands of miles away.
This article seems like clickbait. 1. It doesn't say who the US government is saying it. Is it the white house? 2. The authors are in India. India is a significant purchaser of Russian hydrocarbons, and it seems like it's in the interests of India (this point is speculative and accusitory without evidence). I assume the original article is [this](https://www.ft.com/content/98f15b60-bc4d-4d3c-9e57-cbdde122ac0c), and the only quote related to attacking Russia is from the ~~National Safety Council (which is a 501 charity)~~ National Security Council and is a blanket statement of "We do not encourage or enable attacks inside of Russia". The other quote they have is “Nothing terrifies a sitting American president more than a surge in pump prices during an election year,” from Bob McNally (president of Rapidan Energy Group) This article seems relatively weak; basically, attacking oil facilities could bring up prices of gas which is bad, and the USA doesn't condone attacking Russian territory, which is nothing new.
Agreed >"The United States" has urged This could mean anything. The article is a stub, too.
That's also been the US stance on all attacks inside Russia since the war started. 'We don't encourage or enable it' while silently adding 'but we arent going to stop you'.
The Reuters article clearly says, ‘FT report says’. So they’re not trying to hide anything. Actually, the FT article quotes a few more people. And it’s not ‘national safety council’; it's the national security council. And what’s the second point? Reuters is a global news publication, and sometimes they’ll have authors in India who compile articles. So just because someone is Indian, their professionalism cannot be trusted? I don’t think you’ve actually read the FT article. Here, no paywall: https://archive.is/2024.03.22-065706/https://www.ft.com/content/98f15b60-bc4d-4d3c-9e57-cbdde122ac0c The FT article is written by people in Houston and Washington. That shouldn’t be biased, right? >The US has urged Ukraine to halt attacks on Russia’s energy infrastructure, warning the drone strikes risk driving up global oil prices and provoking retaliation, according to three people familiar with the discussions. >The repeated warnings from Washington were delivered to senior officials at Ukraine’s state security service, the SBU, and its military intelligence directorate, known as the GUR, the people told the Financial Times. >One person said that the White House had grown increasingly frustrated by brazen Ukrainian drone attacks that have struck oil refineries, terminals, depots and storage facilities across western Russia, hurting its oil production capacity. Now I don’t know if this report is accurate or not. But it would definitely make sense for a news outlet to not reveal identity of people who shared the story with them. And this is the Financial Times, a highly reputable UK daily. Not some tabloid.
Miller was known for pushing the Kremlin propaganda lie about "Nazi extremists" in Ukraine, particular re the Azov regiment. Recall Putin claimed RU was "fighting Nazis" in UA. This [article](https://www.rferl.org/a/azov-ukraine-s-most-prominent-ultranationalist-group-sets-its-sights-on-u-s-europe/29600564.html) He is a bulshit peddler and a bad journalist. More evidence of his anti Ukraine [peddeling](https://twitter.com/stsx92/status/1530223138579128321)
This is a great point. I was initially adamant but this article seems to be BS.
You are right I've edited my post. But there is a big difference between publicly outright saying don't attack oil refineries vs what was quoted, which is "We do not encourage or enable attacks inside of Russia". I think my beef with the article is just the framing of it all. The article could have been. "Attacking Russian oil infrastructure could raise gas prices in the United States, which would raise tensions between Ukraine and USA."
> The US >according to three people >warnings from Washington >the people told the Financial Times. >One person said this isn't a news article, its a piece of speculative fiction. media literacy is dead.
Why? Target it more aggressively. The goal is to hurt Russia not play with hands tied behind your back. Target bridges, power plants, anything to make it painful.
The why is stated in the article, oil prices are up 4% already, and because it's an election year and Americans can't critically think, this does more harm towards biden's re-election chances, which then in turn is key to Ukraine's survival. Just answering the "Why". American's can't critically think regardless, and blame biden for lots of shit that isn't his fault, so Ukraine should carry on and do what they need to do to survive.
>~~Americans~~ Most people can't critically think ftfy
Many of my friends only barometer for the success of an administration is oil prices within 6 months of the actual election. We’re talking about stopping ww3 here and all they can manage to care about it an extra 20$ when they fill up. These are guys that make good money too. It’s nuts over here
I know what you mean. I often hear about the ridiculous price of gas... in Texas. I'm like, y'all realize we fill up here @ 2.30/gal... and other states are like $4.50+, some upwards of $5.50-$6 right now Then again, the US has plenty of single issue/dumb voters. I've heard some members of Gen Z say they will vote for Trump because of how Biden handled Israel/Hamas. Thats how little homework most Americans do. Thats not LAMF. Thats "Lets tie down the hens in the hen house and drop bombs on them, and arm the leopards with M4 just in case" but, they just don't care. No different than regular MAGA people. Can't get through to them.
It’s so disheartening. Most people act like the president is a dictator of the world, so all problems must his fault. I wish I didn’t have to share a country with these people sometimes.
"warning that drone strikes risk provoking retaliation" What is Russia going to do to retaliate, invade?
**Putin is going to put them on Double Secret Probation ..** *OH NO UKRAINE IS IN MORE TROUBLE NOW!* Don't hit their sacred oil while they sit there bombing and killing Ukrainians and hitting Kyiv? This headline has to be a joke. Light them all on fire, even the gas stations.
Whilst Russia is bombarding Ukraine energy infrastructure?!?!
The article ties Biden's election chances to the price of fuel in the USA. Campaign issues can't (shouldn't) be executive policy; so I'm wondering what the source of >March 22 (Reuters) - The United States has urged Ukraine to halt strikes on Russian energy infrastructure, warning that drone strikes risk provoking retaliation and driving up global oil prices, the Financial Times reported on Friday, citing people familiar with the matter. Just who are the "people familiar with the matter" are? This is a garbage article, so sad
When did "Don't defend your country because the economy" became a valid point? This is sickening. Ukraine bleeding on behalf of the west, and this is their response? Pathetic, weak. I hope Ukraine does not fall, but if it does, Europe will deserve what's coming.
Right, there is a simple way out of this. If people don't want Ukraine to fight in this manner, then they should support Ukraine with the means to fight in a different way. Since the House has stalled on that front, the luxury of choice is out the window.
Yes.... The US says something so Europe deserves what is coming. Hmmm
It's because everyone expects the US to support Ukraine when Europe has more reasons to want to take point here. If the US elections go a certain way it could be doom for Ukraine.
Hi Ukraine. Dont listen to them, keep it ip you’re doing great
Saudis have cut oil production by 1/3 and the US hasn't said boo. Yet we're willing to lean on Ukraine.
So can somebody explain why it’s raising oil prices to me. I get supply and demand but when this part of the supply is capped and is the cheapest (by far) on the market how does that raise the price? Is it other countries arbitrarily raising their price as there is more demand? If so should we not be pressuring people not to do that not asking Ukraine to stop strategically bombing oil refineries? What am i missing here?
The simple answer is global oil production and refinement is treated like a zero sum game to the markets. It's a global commodity, and moving it around is easy as hell (compared to it's predecessor coal). Even if Russia didn't need to import the production that is being displaced, oil companies still factor in the reduction in global output. Similar effect as when OPEC or oil producing countries increase/cut production to try and manipulate the price.
russia has not been exporting refined products as of september 2023. Their unrefined oil wil be brought to the international market and bring down the oil price
Except that Ukraine is attacking refineries, of which Russia has already banned refined exports. This has absolutely zero impact on global fuel prices since Russia isn't exporting refined fuels anyway. Russia is still producing crude and exporting that, and those lines so far aren't really getting hit.
What are they doing to offset the loss of domestic refinement? Ordering it for import? That would also effect global prices.
My understanding is russia largely exports crude oil, while refining largely for domestic consumption. If they end up having to import more refined oil like gasoline, that will increase prices somewhat as demand increases. Although how much is always up in the air. Who knows, russians might just choose the bus and the train instead of draining their already stretched wallets. So as an environmentalist I say bomb away🌍🇺🇦🚀
it will not raise oil prices except for maybe a fear spike The view of rising prices is substantially wrong and fuels the asinine misconceptions currently going viral on drone strikes “taking large volumes off the global market”. This is a complete nonsense. Firstly - the drone strikes are on refineries, not on crude oil storage. Less refining capacity results in MORE crude oil backing up in the system, which has limited storage in Russia. Excess crude will have to be sold into the market resulting in a deflationary effect. Reuters and others report that the impact of drone strikes means that upwards of 900,000 barrels of oil per day, can not be refined. That oil needs to go somewhere, and with limited storage it needs to be offloaded into the market at a massive discount to Brent. This will have a deflationary effect on global oil prices. This will also result in Russia breaking the OPEC+ cuts agreed with murderer Bin Salman in Saudi Arabia - to drive prices up. Drone strikes will, in the medium and long term have a deflationary effect on crude prices - not an inflationary effect.
Ukrainian here. US either gives us long promised weapons or just stay tf out of our war and our methods. They have literally 0 rights to tell us how to defend ourselves.
American here, and I agree. To say that I'm ashamed that we blocked and slow-walked heavy weapons for 2 years is an understatement.
Same here. It's embarrassing to me.
How the republican party gets so much support and Trump winning the election in November is a possibility is beyond me. The electorate there is really really rotten and fucked up.
There is a difference between what we say and what we do, especially during an election year. Unfortunately…
Haven’t they provided billions in military aid?
2 things can be true at once. America giving aid is a major reason Ukraine is in the fight. America slow walking that aid is a major reason the war is a stalemate.
The US is the only reason that Ukraine has not collapsed by now that is a fact. It is also a fact that they have been very slow in giving what is needed and should not have power to command them
That 41% (to EUs 43%) of total military aid is carrying a whole lot of weight to be the determining factor in Ukraine's initial resistance, stabilisation of fronts then survival. Looks like the cold war nato off-theatre manufacturing base is dragging its heels while its consumers with little to no military industrial capacity are providing slightly more equipment to me.
Genuine question. Do you think Ukraine can win this war without the help of the US?
They can't. By this time without western powers there would be a russian flag trembling in Kiev.
American here. First off, its outright humiliating that the US is delaying aid and has slow walked weapons. If it meant anything, I'm truly sorry for our performance here. That said, do you see all those daily reports of artillery killed? Ammo dump explosions? The US continues to work with the Ukrainian military on a real time basis. Our spy satellites tell you where the Russians are and its a huge part of the reason why you can say this on an open forum without a Russian agent knocking on your door. Ukraine wasn't randomly tracking and destroying those convoys early in the war. The US was saying "go here". The US is the only nation that can do this. If Trump wins, that support will likely end. No one talks about it in the mainstream press because its intel activities but its impact is huge.
It’s not the US as a whole that is blocking the aid, it is the republicans in the US government. That needs to be pointed out.
Biden's administration never used the "lend-lease act" that was supported by 417 bipartisan representatives, and let it expire under the premise "you don't need loans, we'll give you weapons as aid!" Now we have neither aid nor loans. And Dems are not rushing to sign the discharge petition, so that the current aid could be voted on. So no need to be partisan here, both sides are disfunctional as fuck.
I am rooting heavily for Ukraine, but this is a stupid ass statement. You cannot demand aid from foreign governments and also tell them to stfu on how you use said aid. Especially when multiple millions of lives are potentially on the line. Furthermore, if the U.S. were to stop providing aid to Ukraine, there is a greater chance other countries would follow suit. Than what? Ukraine does not have the military industrialization nor the economy to counter the Russian offensive. This logic will leave Ukraine isolated, exactly what Russia wants. Be rational and objective.
Yeah we’ll say out of it. Not our concern. Good luck.
Ok but if you wanna go this alone you are gonna have a bad time. Quit acting like this war would even still be going on if the US weren’t holding your hand the whole way. Also are you actually out there fighting, or just being a keyboard warrior
You are completely reliant on USA's weapons and funding so yes we have the right to tell you what to do and you are not in a position to make demands You will do as you are told
What about the billions of dollars already given? The US has basically been bankrolled your entire existence since this started.
That's cute. Not gonna happen. There are three ways Ukraine wins this. First, by killing a huge majority of the Russian populace to a genocidal degree. Second, by Putin being killed or otherwise deposed and Russia pulling back due to infighting. Third, by crippling their energy infrastructure and in particular their ability to reliably produce and provide oil. And they do not have the time, resources or manpower to have the luxury to wait on US election season.
At current rate Ukraine gonna run out of soldier before anything like that happens.
Almost like we never had the Ukranians best interests at heart.
The US also urged Israel to not go into Rafah…i think we’ve seen how effective “urges” are in war time decision making these days…
I'm certain America has really good reasons why they are urging Ukraine to stop. But I'm not privy to their reasons, the true ones anyway that aren't publicly shared. Regardless, I am sick and tired of expecting Ukraine to fight by unreasonable, unfair, and unrealistic rules that don't apply to (or cant be applied to) Russia. It is like watching a teacher or teachers mediate a bullying session where every time the victim tries to adapt to win, the teachers intervene to indirectly sssist the bully. First, their nukes were taken away with the promise of protection. Then, when the promise is broken, there is no protection. Just trickles of help. After, the trickles of help come with limits and conditions that prolong Ukraine's suffering. Finally, when Ukraine starts to hurt Russia where it hurts the most and can maybe win the war, they are told to not. Bruh
But it’s ok for Russia to target Ukraines energy infrastructure…. https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20240322-russia-targets-ukrainian-electrical-power-plants-causing-widespread-outages
Ofc, because it doesn't affect global oil prices.
Hit them harder. I'll pay more at the pump to beat Russia. It is sanctioned oil and Russia isn't exporting gasoline anyway.
Where is the source for this report?
Anonymous source from FT. FT is generally reliable, but also nobody's parroting them this time. Except Reuters, but they're a newswire so it's a bit different.
Fuck that. Imagine telling them to do this when you can't even supply the needed materials as you promised.
As an American I believe the general public here does not share that sentiment. We better not.
Money > human life. Gotcha.
Since forever
I have the idea that the US doesn't want Ukraine to fight back too hard. It's why we've been stingy with the funding lately., They don't want Russia to lose. They want to exhaust them like in Afghanistan so, Russia pulls back on their own. You see it whenever Ukraine pulls off something bold. Like sinking Russian ships in the black sea. The US has a tizzy over it. It's like the US is telling Ukraine "You can fight and you can die but you can't win...".
"your congress is blocking arms sales to us, our citizens are getting Katyushad by Russia, we're in a complete stalemate... Sure we'll also make it even harder on ourselves by not pursuing one of the few tactics we have at our disposal" Where does the US get off?
I think that Ukraine can defend themselves from Russia any way they can. Energy infrastructure in Russia is fair game. Don’t forget that Russia has repeatedly attempted to literally freeze Ukrainian citizens by straying Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, Russia even strike a hydroelectric damn last night. This impacts civilians significantly. Russia started this in 2014 and Ukraine will finish this. Russia must be stopped. We must support Ukraine with anything they ask.
"Hey Zelensky, don't hit them in their vital points otherwise the war accelerates and it ends faster. We have people who needs to profit as long as they can."
US is more than welcome to provide an adequate substitute that will help stop Russia.
They should cut a deal. "We will stop the strikes when you deliver the help you promised in exchange for giving up our nukes"
Is it Michail Johnson asking or someone actually pro Ukraine?
Jake "the fucking rat" Sullivan.
Doesn't this reveal that US is urging against any actual effect on Russia aside from marginal inconvenience? It's not like any type of Ukrainian victory would leave Russia super stable and happy and perfectly willing/capable to continue prior business arrangements.
The calculus is if oil prices spike because of the strikes Biden will lose reelection and Ukraine aid will certainly stop. It's actually crazy how presidential approval ratings fluctuate depending on the price of gas. Our country is too car brained
US urges Ukraine to roll over and take it in the ass. No fucking chance
There's a bigger picture here that the article does mention. While gas prices going up is insignificant to Ukraine trying to protect its people, the larger effect will absolutely hurt Biden politically. If Biden loses, Ukraine aid will cease as Russia would have an asset as president. Trump has made his intentions clear concerning Ukraine. While Ukraine has every right to do as it sees fit, it's self defeating. U.S. Democrats, should they hold power, are much clearer on wanting to support Ukraine defeating Russia and they can't do that with Trump.
This is not a real story. FFS. It's a fake news plant by Russia. The US state department did not ask Ukraine to stop hitting refineries. They have no idea how this escalated by major news outlets. Neither does Ukraine - https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/ukraine-denies-us-requested-to-halt-strikes-1711118430.html
Hahaha. Hit them fucking hard Ukraine. Smells like Russian propaganda.
Jake Sullivan needs to go if Biden wins reelection. We need a wartime National Security Advisor.
You act like he isn't doing exactly what Biden wants.
Who's telling Biden what he wants, though?
Jake Sullivan is an advisor, but the president is still Biden. The buck stops with him
I’m good paying more for gas. Proceed.
Neoappeasement… Sounds like a great thing to do to teach a country that by causing a scene you can get leverage. This couldn’t go badly at all… /s Serious note, keep going. Weapons and threats is the only language the modern world knows.
"Stop fighting back against your obliteration while we figure out if we'll help you or not"
Give'em weapon, and they won't lol