The US should not intervene in Ukraine!

[Anomalocaris]

Yes, but how much?

Not a lot.....certainly not 130 billion meters a year that the Russians supply Europe.

However in 2008 the US railroads shipped less than 10,000 carloads of crude oil in a year. In 2013 it was 400,000 car loads. In 2014 in will be even more. I don't see why US rail couldn't ramp up LNG shipments just as quickly.

Even if the US rail system can move the containers, the existing shipping terminals can't safely handle them, existing container ships aren't set up safely store them, the distribution system at the receiving end aren't set up to receive them from tanks. The deadweight of the tanks themselves adds to the inefficiency.

It can't be done in 2-5 years. It you make the investment to do it after 5 years, you risk colossal loses if the Russians don't jack up the price and thus use their pipelines to massively undercut you in transportation cost.

[orogenicman]

Russia cannot turn off the spigot without enduring some serious economic consequences itself. Further, last time they did it(2006 and 2009) caused Europe to start diversifying its gas sources and spurred the production of facilities to stock pile gas.

Countries like Germany now have huge stock piles of gas and could send gas to other countries like Ukraine for a while. Also we're in April and Europe needs a less gas then if we were in the middle of winter. The United States is preparing to star exporting gas to Europe in 2015 and those plans are probably being accelerated and expanded. Europe is in a better position now than it was in 2006 and 2009 to endure a short term gas disruption.

Russia's position is strong in this game but not as strong as you think.....especially over the long haul. Sure they have a loaded gun but they have to be concerned about shooting themselves in the foot. In the long run Russia needs to sell gas and they have to worry about creating a need in Europe for it to develop infrastructure that will allow it to boycott Russian gas when it wants.

Actually, Germany gets 35% of its own gas needs from Russia. Germany's only major domestic energy reserve is coal, and very low quality, high polluting coal at that. Coal can not replace natural gas even if Germany reverses all her positions on green house gas and other pollution. If Russian gas stops, German couples will not be able to cook and German grandmothers will freeze to death in their apartments. Europe had no ability to replace Russian gas with domestic production now, and European ones tic politics makes it exceedingly unlikely for it to develop any meaningful capacity in 1, 3, or 5 years.

The United States has surplus natural gas, but this is such a recent development that there is no infrastructure to export any of it. There won't be any infrastructure to export it in 1-2 years, and any infrastructure capacity to export gas that can be built in 5 years would be tiny compared to European consumption of Russian gas.

In a 5 year time horizon, Russian position is powerful.

As to longer term, it is important to recognize Russian regard keeping Ukraine in its orbit as vital to her own existential security for the foreseeable future. A Ukraine outside Russian orbit is more deadly to Russian perception of her own security and freedom of action than soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba had been dangerous to the US in 1960s. It is true on a time horizon longer than 5 years, the west can make Russian feel pain. But rest assured from Russian point of view, the west can not inflict nearly as much pain on Russia as the pain of loss of Ukraine.

So presenting Russia with the option of giving up Ukraine or suffer the worst we can do to it is idiotic. The worst we can do to it won't come close to losing Ukraine, and so will under no circumstances motivate Russia to give up Ukraine. At the same time, inflict ineffectual pain on Russia will most certainly hurt us. And we will suffer it for no possibility if any gain.

---

Another thing Russia has to think about is this: If there is war the pipelines that provide Russia with many economic and strategic benefits are at risk of being destroyed.

If it is destroyed, Europe would be more eager to rebuild it than Russia.

You are forgetting one thing. The Ukraine is a sovereign nation. As such, it is not Russia's to take or keep, since they don't own it in the first place.

[Anomalocaris]

That's a mere legality. International legality have a way of making ruckus at an insult but then gradually adapting itself to the fait accompli.

Between nations, if you can't undo someone else's illegal act, then wait a while and it would become legal.

[Heywood]

Even if the US rail system can move the containers, the existing shipping terminals can't safely handle them, existing container ships aren't set up safely store them, the distribution system at the receiving end aren't set up to receive them from tanks. The deadweight of the tanks themselves adds to the inefficiency.

ISO tanks are not rail cars. The are tanks designed to ride on rail cars, trucks, or ships.



LNG can be shipped this way virtually anywhere. You are correct though, a pipeline carries considerably more volume than rail can....even if rail began to run as much LNG as it does crude oil.

[orogenicman]

There is gas shale in Europe. They just need to decide to develop it.

[Anomalocaris]

The domestic opposition to extracting shale gas with fracking is very intense. It seems unlikely Europe would get much gas from that venue in the next 5 years. European reaction to Russian intransigence is temporary, their allergy to fracking seem more chronic.

[orogenicman]

The domestic opposition to extracting shale gas with fracking is very intense. It seems unlikely Europe would get much gas from that venue in the next 5 years. European reaction to Russian intransigence is temporary, their allergy to fracking seem more chronic.

The first time Russia cuts off the gas supply, that will change.

[Anomalocaris]

The domestic opposition to extracting shale gas with fracking is very intense. It seems unlikely Europe would get much gas from that venue in the next 5 years. European reaction to Russian intransigence is temporary, their allergy to fracking seem more chronic.

The first time Russia cuts off the gas supply, that will change.

Russia cut off gas supply in 2009. Nothing changed.

[Minimalist]

The first time Russia cuts off the gas supply, that will change.

Money talks - bullshit walks. Even Putin understands that.

[sven]

The echo-politcal points you've discussed are all valid, but from what I've seen Putin have been making a lot of decisions that seem less and less rational. He seems to be moving away from real politics and venturing into national and ethnic chauvinism, ambitions of empire to restore the glory and pride of Russia, old fashioned morals, religion, and other such nonsense. I'm not saying he's insane or anything -- just more and more irrational. The ridiculous law about 'homosexual propaganda' is just a tiny indication. Why create such a law? To prevent people from becoming homosexuals?
What truly rational person would believe that 'propaganda' turns people into gays? To me it's ludicrous.
Somebody mentioned fait accompli. That's probably what he's hoping for -- that NATO will lack the guts and the inclination to help Ukraine militarily before Russia has swallowed the country, piece by piece. The prime minister of Ukraine is already giving in to the provocateurs in the east of the country.
I see few ways a military intervention can end but in full-blown war between NATO and Russia. On the other hand, I think NATO is showing too much weakness. When they 'sharpened their tone' yesterday it was like, 'Last week we were mad. Now we're really, reallý mad. If you don't quit right now, we're gonna get really, really, REALLY... mad...'