Ukraine And Energy Realism


February 26, 2022Francis Menton

For a long time I have thought that the public in Western countries would wake up to the absurdity of fossil fuel suppression when the price of energy to the consumer rose high enough. And to a substantial degree that has begun to happen.

But the cost of fossil fuel suppression is not merely a modest degradation in our comfortable lifestyles and impoverishment of the poor. As the situation in Ukraine is now demonstrating, fossil fuel suppression in the U.S., Europe and other Western countries also entails significant empowerment of our most significant geopolitical adversaries, and poses major risks to world security, and even to our national security.

The coming of the Biden administration a year ago brought a full-on government war on the fossil fuel industries:

1) Cancellation of pipelines;

2) Ending of leasing of mineral rights on government lands and offshore;

3) an order that all government agencies work by regulation to eliminate fossil fuels from electricity generation by 2035;

4) Threats by bank regulators against banks that lend to the fossil fuel industries;

5) Initiatives by the SEC to make it more difficult and costly for industries to use fossil fuels;

6) Dozens of initiatives in places like the Department of Energy and Interior Department to block projects using fossil fuels or make them more difficult or costly;

7) Much, much more

As should have surprised no one, prices of fossil fuels responded by rising dramatically. Prices of crude oil have gone from a range of about $40-60 per barrel during the Trump years to close to $100 per barrel today.

U.S. natural gas prices that averaged about $3/MMBtu during the Trump years are now about $4.50 (having spiked over $6 in late 2021).

In Europe, where almost all fracking has been suppressed by governments out of supposed concern for the environment, the most recent price for natural gas importsis close to $30/MMBtu

Certainly, a direct impact of these rising prices has been increased costs to the consumer: increased electricity bills, increased home heating bills, increased costs for gasoline for automobiles.

For example the average price of regular gasoline at the pump in the U.S. has gone from about $2.25 in January 2021 to about $3.60 today. In Europe prices are about $10 to $11/gal

But equally important is the degree to which these dramatic rises in energy prices benefit all the worst actors on the world state, starting with Russia. Russia is largely dependent on energy production and exports to the West for its government budget.

A year ago, with energy prices in the toilet, Vladimir Putin was basically broke. Today, with energy prices having almost doubled, he is relatively flush. And suddenly we have an invasion of Ukraine, basically financed by Western countries that have suppressed their own production of oil and gas and thus must buy the stuff from Russia.

So why, you might ask, don’t the Western countries just cut off imports from Russia and leave Putin high and dry? The simple answer is that the Western countries have invested hundreds of billions of dollars in wind and solar energy that don’t work and don’t provide the energy needed; so if these countries want to keep their electrical grid running, they need to buy natural gas, which principally comes from Russia.

Consider Germany. Germany adopted its “Energiewende” back in 2010, and fancies itself leading the world to the great clean renewable energy future. Germany’s peak electricity usage is about 90 GW. To supply that, it has built some 65 GW of wind power capacity, and almost 60 GW of solar power capacity.

So that’s a total of about 125 GW of generation capacity right there, against peak usage of about 90 GW. Sounds like they have plenty of power from the wind and sun alone to take care of all their needs.

But of course wind and solar don’t work that way. Here in the winter, we have the times of cloudy days, calm winds, and long nights. Here is a chart from Agora Energiewende of Germany’s electricity generation and consumption for the past few days:

It looks like just after the sun set today, the wind and sun together were generating less than 5 GW out of that supposed “capacity” of 125 GW.

Usage was about 50 GW at the time. Oh, and Germany is also phasing out its nuclear reactors.

So aside from those tiny amounts of hydro and “biomass” at the bottom of the chart, that leaves coal, oil and natural gas; or alternatively, a blackout. From Time, today:

Th[e] glaring omission in Biden’s sanctions package could be the consequence of a promise to the countries of Europe, cowering in fear as their dependency on Russian gas renders them impotent to fight back against Russia’s invasion.

This is not unreasonable. Germany especially will suffer if Russian gas imports are blocked; Europe imports 40% of its natural gas from Russia, but for Germany it is up to 50%, on top of 45% dependency on Russian coal and 34% on Russian oil.

Meanwhile, Germany is continuing to phase out nuclear, making it more reliant on Russian energy imports.

And of course the U.S. can’t supply these European energy needs because the Biden Administration is intentionally suppressing natural gas production here.

Is it time for a little energy realism from the Biden people? Here are the remarks from Climate Envoy John Kerry a couple of days ago as Russia’s Ukraine invasion got underway:

“But it could have a profound negative impact on the climate obviously. You have a war and obviously you’re going to have massive emissions consequences to the war.

But equally importantly, you’re going to lose people’s focus, you’re going to lose certainly big country attention, because they will be diverted and I think it could have a damaging impact. . . .”

It’s almost impossible to fathom how idiotic and clueless Kerry is.

And I don’t necessarily mean just to pick on Kerry. It’s all of them, not the least Biden himself, who has no clue about anything, including energy, who mouthes slogans from teleprompters, who reads talking points from note cards.

"And away we go", said Jackie Gleason

Views: 151


You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!

Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on March 1, 2022 at 1:26am

Come Again? Ukrainian Parliament Member Tells Fox News: “We Not only Fight For Ukraine – We Fight For this New World Order” (VIDEO)

Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on February 28, 2022 at 7:25pm

Ukrainian MP — “We Are Fighting for the New World Order”

Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on February 28, 2022 at 1:08pm

“If the Election Wasn’t Rigged, America Would Right Now Continue to have Record-Low Gas Prices” – President Trump Statement on Oil Prices and Ukraine

Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on February 28, 2022 at 12:29pm

Col Douglas Macgregor Has a Slightly Different Take on Russia-Ukraine Conflict
My spidey senses tell me that Col Douglas Macgregor will not be welcomed back on Fox News after he gave a rather different take on what is happening amid the Russia-Ukraine conflict that does not toe the common media line. [SEGMENT HERE] Jennifer Griffin was furious.

Comment by Willem Post on February 28, 2022 at 10:36am








Comment by Willem Post on February 28, 2022 at 10:29am



I wrote this article, because Russia-hating, extremists in the US State Department and US Congress have been using NATO to pressure first the USSR, then Russia.


They have been deluding impoverished, corrupt Ukraine with future membership in the EU and NATO, since 1990

They have been weaponizing Ukraine since the US-instigated Color Revolution/coup d’etat in 2014

Millions of Russian-speaking Ukrainians, mostly in East Ukraine, decided not to support the Kiev government.

The US instigated Ukraine not to implement the Minsk 2 agreements, to keep the pot boiling


The US and UK supplied huge quantities of defensive and offensive weapons, plus military training personnel to Ukraine, so it could “defend itself”


Russia made certain demands regarding:


1) NATO encroachments beyond East Germany starting in 1997 (after pledging not to do so in 1990)

2) The indivisibility of Russian and European security.


The US/UK-led NATO rejected the demands, and offered to talk about important, albeit peripheral issues.


Ukraine hot-heads floated the idea of Ukraine having an “Iron Dome” similar to Israel, and reacquiring nuclear weapons

Russia finally reacted. The result is a shooting war in Ukraine.


The EU is partially at fault, as it did not assert itself regarding the Kiev coup d’etat in 2014

The EU decided to become an aider and abettor of US policy goals regarding Ukraine in 2014, and onwards

The EU ended up being maneuvered into its present predicament, which is at variance with EU vital interests.


How Ukraine Fits into The Global Jigsaw


This article explains in great detail the ongoing control of the Euro/Asian land mass. It should be read before this article


EU Goals


European countries have had trade relations with Russia for more than 1000 years


France, Germany, and Russia are trying to find common ground and avoid the outbreak of hostilities.


France and Germany are aiming to deescalate the crisis atmosphere the US/UK is creating and hyping


France and Germany understand ignoring Moscow’s security interests and concerns is not realistic, if order, stability and peace is to be maintained in Europe


France and Germany are dependent on Russian energy supplies. They do not want to enforce the harsh restrictions the US/UK-combo demands.


Germany is unwilling to sacrifice its energy and industrial needs, and ENERGIEWENDE to facilitate Washington’s hostile anti-Russia policies.


France not acceding to the US/UK demands for extreme sanctions would further weaken their unwanted hold over European affairs.


France and Germany are ignoring the incessant complaints from Poland and the Baltic states, and now also Ukraine; all of them are acting as US/UK lapdogs to: 1) facilitate NATO expansions and 2) receive free weapons


Although the EU vows to respond to any Russian invasion of Ukraine to show “unity” with the US, they fully understand Moscow has no plans for any invasion.


US/UK Goals


A US/UK expeditionary army of about 20,000 was fighting with the Tsarist White Army against the Communist Red Army in 1918. That fight is still going by the extremists in the US State Department and by some Members in the US Congress


In 2022, the US/UK are continuing to pursue their uncompromising, warmongering, hate-Russia agenda; they would have no bloodshed and damage within their own territories.


The US/UK-combo goals are to pressure, contain, threaten, intimidate, and diminish the viability of Russia  


The US energy sector has a further aim to make Europe dependent on US LNG, instead of 25 to 30 percent less-costly Russian pipeline gas, as part of wiping out a competitor. Much to its frustration, Russia has allied with China and India, who are eager buyers of low-cost Russian oil and gas.


NATO, a US/UK Handmaiden to Pressure, Contain, Diminish Russia


The US/UK combo has used NATO to advance US/UK policy goals to pressure, contain, diminish, demonize first the USSR, then Russia, which is unlike the USSR, but has been demonized just the same.


The US/UK policies do not fully serve the policy interests of the EU, which aim to gain power/influence by means of profitable international trade, instead of military muscle-flexing.

As a result, only a few NATO members fulfil their pledge to spend at least 2% of GDP on their military defense.


The US/UK has almost no trade relations with Russia

France, Germany, Italy, etc., have major trade relations with Russia that are very profitable

Sanctions on Russia, eagerly imposed by the US/UK, and reluctantly imposed by the EU, have had little adverse impact on the US/UK, but major adverse impacts on the EU.


Russia’s response to sanctions has been countersanctions, and adaptations to minimize adverse effects of sanctions, including closer military and commercial alliances with China and India.

The adaptations have improved the diversity, independence and efficiency of the Russian economy.


NATO’s military infrastructure expansions into east Europe and the Caucasus since 1990 may have increased European security, but certainly diminished Russian security, in violation of the Helsinki Agreements and the Russia-NATO Founding Act


NATO has a convenient policy, which states each sovereign country has a right to make its own security arrangements.

Russia is surrounded by sovereign countries, such as Belarus, Kazakhstan, etc.

Does that mean all these countries are fair game for NATO-color-revolution-style regime change?


Russia Recognized Luhansk and Donetsk as Independent Republics (not just the areas held by separatists)


Putin addressed the security guarantees that he demanded of the US and NATO in December, arguing if Ukraine is allowed to join NATO, “then the threats to our country will increase many times.”


He raised the issue again in his speech Monday, Feb 21, 2022, arguing to his fellow Russians that “if Ukraine was to join NATO, it would serve as a direct threat to the security of Russia.”


“In NATO documents, our country is officially and directly declared the main threat to North Atlantic security,” Putin added. “And Ukraine will serve as a forward springboard for the strike. If our ancestors had heard about it, they probably would simply not have believed it. And today we don’t want to believe it, but it’s true.”


NATO Expansions Starting in 1997




This article summarizes statements by prominent people in the UK, US, and Europe opposing NATO expansions. That no one was threatening anybody.


Secretary of State Wolfowitz issued a US Defense plan for 1994 to 1999, that included the expansion of NATO, i.e., expand US geo-strategic objectives.

The US Congress approved the expansion of NATO in 1998.

Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic were admitted in 1999


At present, the US Government-Media complex is repeating, ad nauseum, all this has nothing to do with NATO expansion, but everything to do with evil Putin trying to: 1) deny Ukraine’s right to exist; 2) reestablish the greatness of Russia, 3) Putin hating Freedom and Democracy.


If Russia’s attack on Ukraine has nothing to do with NATO expansion, how come so many western experts have spent decades warning NATO expansion would lead to an attack on Ukraine?


Spinmeister, Ambassador Michael McFaul, facetiously pretends: “This thing (i.e., NATO expansions) we were warned about for decades was never anything anyone ever mentioned until the end of last year”


Germany's Spiegel Asks "Is Vladimir Putin Right?" Over NATO Expansion


The West promised no to expand NATO, beyond East Germany (the Oder River), according to a recently made-public document from the UK National Archives.


A newly discovered document from March 1991 shows US, UK, French, and German officials discussing a pledge made to Moscow that NATO would not expand to Poland and beyond. Its publication by the German magazine Der Spiegel on Friday comes as expansion of the US-led bloc has led to a military standoff in Eastern Europe. 


The minutes of a March 6, 1991 meeting in Bonn between political directors of the foreign ministries of the US, UK, France, and Germany contain multiple references to “2+4” talks on German unification in which the Western officials made it “clear” to the Soviet Union that NATO would not push into territory east of Germany. 


“We made it clear to the Soviet Union – in the 2+4 talks, as well as in other negotiations – that we do not intend to benefit from the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Eastern Europe”,the document quotes US Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Canada Raymond Seitz.


“NATO should not expand to the east, either officially or unofficially,” Seitz added. 

A British representative also mentions the existence of a “general agreement” that membership of NATO for eastern European countries is “unacceptable.”


“We had made it clear during the 2+4 negotiations that we would not extend NATO beyond the Elbe [sic],” said West German diplomat Juergen Hrobog. “We could not therefore offer Poland and others membership in NATO.”






During a 1990 meeting, US Secretary of State James Baker assured Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev of the following:


Baker said"If the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction."


Several years later, NATO and President Clinton began considering just such a spreading—but not without controversy.


1) American diplomat George Kennan, a towering figure in Cold War strategy, who authored the policy of Soviet “containment,” was unequivocal in his opposition.


In a 1997 essay published by The New York TimesKennan said, "Expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era…Such a decision may be expected…to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking."


2) A bipartisan group of 50 foreign policy luminaries—including Cold War hawks like Paul Nitze and Robert McNamara—signed an open letter to President Clinton opposing NATO expansion.


"Russia does not now pose a threat to its western neighbors and the nations of Central and Eastern Europe are not in danger…we believe that NATO expansion is neither necessary, nor desirable, and that this ill-conceived policy can, and should be put on hold," the group declared.




NATO did promise Moscow it wouldn't expand, former German defense official tells RT


Here is more evidence, the 1990-promise not to expand NATO beyond the Oder (border of East Germany and Poland), was deliberately broken by the US, using NATO as its battering ram since 1994


Hungary and Poland became the first major NATO expansion countries in 1997.


The present US/EU/NATO call for unison, is basically a call for “same-message-thinking”


It is a sign to the Media airing “at variance” thoughts are not welcome, even if such suppression would instigate a real war., which would give the US/EU the excuse to severely sanction Russia


They likely knew “stirring the bear” eventually would lead to trouble.  


The US has instigated lots of wars/military actions/color-revolution since 1945


Eisenhower warned against the power of the military-industrial complex in 1960

The image shows, NATO expansions



Maine as Third World Country:

CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power


Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.

Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT


(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.”

Not yet a member?

Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?

We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

 -- Mahatma Gandhi

"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi 

Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!

Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law

Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future

"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."

© 2024   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service