BREAKING NEWS: ICE shoots and kills woman

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

1 hour ago, Elliott said:

1. We can already mine greenland

 

Mining.com

https://www.mining.com

Greenland miner Amaroq soars on report of US gov't investment

6 days ago — Toronto-based Amaroq currently operates the Nalunaq gold mine in southern Greenland, a historic site that it brought back into production

 

 

2. The u.s. already has enough rare earth's available here. Rare earths are not actually rare, it's just intensive to process and extract(anywhere).

 

 

3.the u.s. does not steal oil, we control the oil market, that's all we care about(restricting supply).

It might be just about denying more access of it to China, one gold mine doesn't count as US having access to this resource in Greenland. But yeah, I'm not gonna lie and say that I know what's happening inside Trumps head or that I understand his logic, but if he wanted to bomb Canada he could already do so. So your explanation doesn't make sense either

The third point is basically just arguing semantics; it doesn't matter and doesn't refute what I said

Edited 4 hours ago by NewKidOnTheBlock

[Elliott]

6 minutes ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

It might be just about denying more access of it to China, one gold mine doesn't count as US having access to this resource in Greenland. But yeah, I'm not gonna lie and say that I know what's happening inside Trumps head or that I understand his logic, but if he wanted to bomb Canada he could already do so. So your explanation doesn't make sense either

The third point is basically just arguing semantics; it doesn't matter and doesn't refute what I said

Taking easy greenland offers a lot of leverage against Canada, as it's completely surrounded by the u.s. at that point with no european allies. Taking greenland is so easy, this is the biggest factor.

Edited 4 hours ago by Elliott

[Jannes]

5 hours ago, Elliott said:

By agreeing to trade deals and giving them peace prizes. Such formidable opposition Jannes! EUROPE HAS NUKES, GROW BALLS! No one will attack Europe. The only way is through intimidation, what Trumps doing.

 

CNN

https://www.cnn.com

Nobel Peace Prize awarded ...

Oct 10, 2025 — US Secretary of State Marco Rubio had nominated Machado for the Peace Prize 

 

https://www.spglobal.com

EU to buy $750 billion of US energy in trade agreement

Jul 28, 2025 — The EU has agreed to buy $750 billion worth of energy from the US as part of the two sides' trade agreement, which could focus on LNG, oil

 

Kyiv Post

https://www.kyivpost.com

France, Spain Increase Russian LNG Imports as EU Ranks Among Top ...

21 hours ago — Spain increased its Russian LNG imports by 27%, while France increased its imports by 18% in December, according to the Helsinki-based

 

 

 

NBC News

https://www.nbcnews.com

 oil tanker linked to Venezuela after weekslong ...

6 days ago — The U.K.'s defense ministry said in a statement that Britain had “provided enabling support” to intercept the Marinera, including “pre 

 

Pussies

The peace price committee didnt give Trump the peace price, it was the bullshit decision of one women. 

The thread of Russia exists though and without the US support Ukraine cant defend itself. Russia also has nukes and seems to be more desperate so thats a dangerous situation. So Europe has to keep being friends with the US as long as possible. 

That Europe still pays for Russian oil is pathetic, I can agree on that. 

[Elliott]

6 minutes ago, Jannes said:

The peace price committee didnt give Trump the peace price, it was the bullshit decision of one women. 

The thread of Russia exists though and without the US support Ukraine cant defend itself. Russia also has nukes and seems to be more desperate so thats a dangerous situation. So Europe has to keep being friends with the US as long as possible. 

That Europe still pays for Russian oil is pathetic, I can agree on that. 

Europe can protect Ukraine alone

 

1.) Distancing from the U.S. ELIMINATES Russian fear that's driving the desire for Ukraine.

2.)Europe has nukes, send all of your missiles(non nukes) to Ukraine. Without u.s. entanglements, Russia will easily agree to treaty.

3.) Without u.s. entanglement with Europe, CHINA will pressure Russia.

[Jannes]

19 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Europe can protect Ukraine alone

 

1.) Distancing from the U.S. ELIMINATES Russian fear that's driving the desire for Ukraine.

2.)Europe has nukes, send all of your missiles(non nukes) to Ukraine. Without u.s. entanglements, Russia will easily agree to treaty.

3.) Without u.s. entanglement with Europe, CHINA will pressure Russia.

1) Thats a good point

2) The US alone sends most of the weapons. So I think Russia will see the chance to get more territory. The US will get back on track in a few years.

3) Why? China and Russia are cool with each other from what I know. 

[Elliott]

Just now, Jannes said:

 

3) Why? China and Russia are cool with each other from what I know. 

They're only "cool" because they're afraid of the west. They're afraid of each other. China would not want Russia to consolidate Europe under Russian authoritarianism.

[Jannes]

1 minute ago, Elliott said:

They're only "cool" because they're afraid of the west. They're afraid of each other. China would not want Russia to consolidate Europe under Russian authoritarianism.

China is authoritarian too .. well not as corrupt as Russia though. 

Well idk, very possible that you are right, I cant really tell as I havent contemplated this dynamic deeply enough. 

[Elliott]

Just now, Jannes said:

China is authoritarian too .. well not as corrupt as Russia though. 

Well idk, very possible that you are right, I cant really tell as I havent contemplated this dynamic deeply enough. 

Authoritarian regimes, although often cooperate with each other, do not trust each other. 

 

The Nazi-Soviet Pact (1939-1941)

Signed on August 23, 1939, by German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop and Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov, the pact was a non-aggression agreement that secretly included protocols to divide Eastern Europe into German and Soviet spheres of influence. 

[BlueOak]

5 hours ago, Elliott said:

You've had 4 years. Europe doesn't care about Ukrainians. Nationalists, all of you. Drink your hot tea and point at the u.s..

 

Interesting Engineering

https://interestingengineering.com

France hits hydrogen jackpot: World's largest reserve valued $92 billion found

Mar 22, 2025 — France has uncovered 46 million tons of natural hydrogen beneath the soil of Folschviller, potentially revolutionizing clean energy 

 

 

energy-pedia

https://www.energy-pedia.com

Equinor reports highest natural gas production ever from a Norwegian field

Jan 6, 2025 — The Troll field in the North Sea has set a historic production record, delivering 42.5 billion standard cubic metres of natural gas in 2024

 

Here is another factual correction:
 

GPT 5.2 - Objective Analyst GPT.
Why Europe still imports LNG (including Russian LNG): an objective explanation

This discussion often collapses into moral accusation or cherry-picked headlines. The reality is more constrained and technical. Europe’s LNG imports are not evidence of indifference to Ukraine, nor proof that alternatives are readily available. They reflect physical, contractual, and systemic limits in global energy markets.

I’ll address the main claims directly.

1. “Europe has had 4 years — it should be independent by now”

• This misunderstands how energy systems work.
• Large-scale energy transitions take decades, not election cycles. Europe has already done the fast part:
• Cut Russian pipeline gas from ~40% of supply to under 10%
• Absorbed record energy prices
• Rebuilt LNG import capacity at historic speed
• Rewired gas flows across the continent
• Funded Ukraine militarily and financially at unprecedented levels

What remains is the slow part:

• New production
• New pipelines
• New LNG trains
• New power systems
• New industrial processes

None of these can be completed in 4 years without causing shortages or economic collapse.

2. The France “hydrogen jackpot” is not relevant to LNG

The cited discovery concerns natural (geologic) hydrogen, not natural gas.

Key facts:

• Hydrogen is not interchangeable with LNG (methane)
• It requires entirely different infrastructure
• There is no commercial-scale extraction or distribution
• It cannot fuel existing gas power plants or heating systems
• Even optimistic projections place material impact well into the 2030s–2040s
• This is a future technology. It does nothing to replace LNG imports today.
• Citing it in a discussion about current LNG flows is a category error.

3. Norway’s record gas production helps — but does not replace LNG

• Norway is Europe’s most important gas supplier and is already producing near technical limits.
• Critical distinctions:
• Norwegian gas is pipeline gas, not LNG
• Pipeline capacity is finite
• Norway cannot “surge” output indefinitely
• Much of Europe cannot physically receive more pipeline gas without new infrastructure
• Even at record production, Norway cannot replace:
• Russian LNG
• US LNG
• Global spot cargoes used to balance seasonal demand
• Norway stabilizes Europe. It does not eliminate LNG dependence.

4. “Europe can just buy from Africa / Middle East / Europe”

This is the most common misconception.

You don’t buy LNG from regions — you buy it from companies.

Those companies are:

• National oil companies
• Western multinationals
• Joint ventures with shared ownership

Africa:

• Limited LNG capacity
• Infrastructure bottlenecks
• Heavy involvement of European and US firms
• No ability to rapidly scale volumes
• Middle East (primarily Qatar):
• Most supply locked into long-term Asian contracts
• Limited flexible volumes
• Oil-indexed pricing Europe dislikes

Europe:

• Does not produce enough LNG
• Relies primarily on pipeline gas and imports
• There is no large pool of unused, politically neutral LNG waiting to replace US or Russian supply.

5. Why LNG still flows from Russia specifically

This is uncomfortable but factual:

• Russian LNG is often price-competitive
• It is not fully sanctioned under current EU law
• Much is tied to pre-existing contracts
• France and Spain are LNG hubs, not just consumers
• Significant volumes are re-exported, not burned domestically
• Higher imports ≠ higher dependence
• They often reflect transit and market arbitrage, not political alignment.

6. Does this mean Europe “doesn’t care about Ukrainians”?

No.

By any measurable metric:

• Financial aid
• Military assistance
• Refugee intake
• Sanctions
• Economic self-harm absorbed
• Europe has paid real costs for supporting Ukraine.

What this situation shows is not indifference — it shows the limits of how fast complex energy systems can change under crisis.

The core reality (stripped of politics)

Europe’s LNG imports exist because:

• Pipeline gas alone is insufficient
• Alternatives are not yet scalable
• Storage is seasonal and finite
• Contracts and infrastructure constrain choice
• LNG is the balancing mechanism of last resort

You can criticize this reality morally or politically — but denying it does not make it disappear.

Bottom line

Europe’s continued LNG imports are driven by physical and economic constraints, not nationalism, hypocrisy, or lack of concern for Ukraine.

Energy systems obey engineering, contracts, and timelines — not rhetoric.

[BlueOak]

It does a better job than I do. While I understand infastructure realignments of this scale take a great effort and a great amount of time and investment, and I also understand everyone is in bed with one another when it comes to oil and gas, making it near impossible to completely bypass either Russia and/or the US.

The GPT does a good job of surmising it in a bulletpoint format.

The headline links you offer are simply insufficient to supply a continent's industry. @Elliott
Nobody is buying Russian gas because they like it or like Putin. They are using it or the US because of a variety of factors, and what can be replaced quickly has been. 

Edited 1 hour ago by BlueOak