• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Will NOT give Exxon permission to drill in Russia

apdst said:
Exxon going Russia to drill for oil isn't going to produce many American jobs. They'll be using Russian drilling contractors. That's how those deals are usually negotiated.
Click to expand...

I'll assume this means you are unwilling to take the bet, even when you get to decide both the timeframe and the amount. Says it all :)
 
EnigmaO01 said:
This is a no brainer. If he gave them a waiver it would enforce the idea that he is in collusion with Russia.

He's already going after Wikileaks to make him look better.
Click to expand...

Looks like the DNC talking points are coming down now...
 
Chomsky said:
I saw this yesterday, but didn't have time to post it.

But yeah, I think I'll give Trump credit here.
Click to expand...

Lol...but you're one of the reasonable ones.
 
Winston said:
Exxon still has a claim to the oil. But, I think that expires at the end of the year. This is a major deal. If Trump lets the clock run out on this oil claim, that is compelling evidence that nothing nefarious is going on between Putin and Trump. My personal beliefs about the truth of what happened last summer, hinge on the sanctions being lifted, so Exxon and Rosneft can make each other richer.

Tillerson has recused himself from all matters regarding Exxon and The State Dep't.
Click to expand...

When in the history of sanctions have they ever worked. Also, we whine about Russia propagandizing our elections while we had sanctions on them the entire time. Pretty pathetic.
 
Fishking said:
When in the history of sanctions have they ever worked. Also, we whine about Russia propagandizing our elections while we had sanctions on them the entire time. Pretty pathetic.
Click to expand...

In this case it's a clear punishment of Putin. Putin has a petrol economy, lifting the sanctions to allow Russia access to the most technologically advanced energy company in the world, means Putin pays no price for invading Crimea. What's to stop him from retaking other former Soviet land? If he made it to Romania, would you draw the line then?

These sanctions objectives aren't regime change, they are to put economic pressure on Russia, to show them they can't retake old Soviet land with impunity.

Economic sanctions in general, do little to influence regime change, as we've seen with Iran and DPRK, because they are authoritarians, who still eat caviar while the commoner splits a loaf of bread between a family of 5. But, the objective of these sanctions, are to put economic pressure on Russia, Russia has a petrol-economy, and it is of vital national interest to Russia, to extract the oil in the Black Sea. We aren't trying to unseat Putin, so, they are achieving their objective.
 
Last edited:
Winston said:
In this case it's a clear punishment of Putin. Putin has a petrol economy, lifting the sanctions to allow Russia access to the most technologically advanced energy company in the world, means Putin pays no price for invading Crimea. What's to stop him from retaking other former Soviet land? If he made it to Romania, would you draw the line then?
Click to expand...

Unrealistic fear-mongering and lack of understanding of geopolitics noted. To think that Russia should sit on their hands while a neo-Nazi pro-western backed coup was carried out and possibly lose one of their most important naval bases or have another country on their boarder join NATO is ridiculous.

These sanctions objectives aren't regime change, they are to put economic pressure on Russia, to show them they can't retake old Soviet land with impunity.
Click to expand...

Which doesn't work.

Economic sanctions in general, do little to influence regime change, as we've seen with Iran and DPRK, because they are authoritarians, who still eat caviar while the commoner splits a loaf of bread between a family of 5. But, the objective of these sanctions, are to put economic pressure on Russia, Russia has a petrol-economy, and it is of vital national interest to Russia, to extract the oil in the Black Sea. We aren't trying to unseat Putin, so, they are achieving their objective.
Click to expand...

So the answer is for Exxon to lose their claim and Russia just takes it over for themselves, eh? That makes sense. Oh, and you're correct, sanctions just hurt the little people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_punishment

You're Albright.

 
Fishking said:
Unrealistic fear-mongering and lack of understanding of geopolitics noted. To think that Russia should sit on their hands while a neo-Nazi pro-western backed coup was carried out and possibly lose one of their most important naval bases or have another country on their boarder join NATO is ridiculous.



Which doesn't work.



So the answer is for Exxon to lose their claim and Russia just takes it over for themselves, eh? That makes sense. Oh, and you're correct, sanctions just hurt the little people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_punishment

You're Albright.

Click to expand...


Nothing you've said is convincing. The obvious position is correct. Sanctions against Russia put economic pressure on the country. And they are achieving their objective.
 
Winston said:
Nothing you've said is convincing. The obvious position is correct. Sanctions against Russia put economic pressure on the country. And they are achieving their objective.
Click to expand...

What objective is that?
 
Winston said:
To show them actions have consequences. And put economic pressure on Russia.
Click to expand...

Yeah...actions have consequences. Like the west backing a neo-Nazi coup of the legitimately elected Ukrainian government resulted in Russia protecting their interests. Another consequence is the west creating the biggest humanitarian crisis in a long time by having a proxi war in Syria. Yeah...lots of consequences.
 
Fishking said:
Yeah...actions have consequences. Like the west backing a neo-Nazi coup of the legitimately elected Ukrainian government resulted in Russia protecting their interests. Another consequence is the west creating the biggest humanitarian crisis in a long time by having a proxi war in Syria. Yeah...lots of consequences.
Click to expand...

Syria has little to do with this story. You'll find I have a very unconventional opinion of the Syrian Civil War and one unlike the opinion expressed on MSM after we launched the cruise missiles.

And I'm not sure how invading Crimea influences Ukraine self-determination? Unless, Putin wished to influence Ukraine to elect a right wing nationalist, tough on borders, and hardliners against Russia. I see it as Putin taking what he wants. It's Putin exploiting unrest.

If Crimea is Ukrainian controlled Ukraine decides their politics, if Crimea is Russian controlled, Ukraine decides their politics.

Your argument is a red herring and purposefully contrarian.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Winston said:
But, the objective of these sanctions, are to put economic pressure on Russia, Russia has a petrol-economy, and it is of vital national interest to Russia, to extract the oil in the Black Sea. We aren't trying to unseat Putin, so, they are achieving their objective.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Putin/Roseneft want to extract (steal) resources from Black Sea undersea gas/oil/shale fields that belong to Ukraine. With the illegal annexation of Crimea, Moscow nationalized (stole) Ukraine's state-owned energy company in Crimea (Chornomornaftogaz) which owned 17 hydrocarbon fields along with 13 offshore platforms in the Black Sea and Sea of Azov. ExxonMobile is seeking a sanction-waiver to exploit the Skifska field in the Black Sea which holds an estimated 200 to 250 billion cubic meters of natural gas. Exxon and the Kremlin-owned Roseneft would rake-in billions in profits while the true field owner - Ukraine - receives nothing. Russia is under economic sanctions imposed by the United States, the 28 member European Union, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. Exxon was essentially seeking a US Treasury Department sanction-waiver to help Russia plunder Ukrainian offshore energy resources.

In Taking Crimea, Putin Gains a Sea of Fuel Reserves


naftogaz_fields.png



20140519_crimea.png
 
Captain Adverse said:
Hmmmm, now I wonder how this will be twisted to make the Trump Administration look bad....
Click to expand...

What if....the action was taken to make the Trump Administration look good, in certain eyes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom