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.

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.

Not near as simple as that, discounting shipping, which we really shouldn't but i'll start with the basics: GPT 5.2 Me: Please list the major companies that supply LNG and their nationality. Someone is arguing Europe can just avoid american or russian companies and go direct to africa, europe and the middle east. Below is a fact-based map of the global LNG supply structure, listing the major LNG-supplying companies, their nationality, and where the gas actually comes from. This directly addresses the claim that Europe can simply avoid American or Russian companies and buy “directly” from Africa, Europe, or the Middle East. Key point up front (important) Europe cannot buy LNG “from regions” — it buys LNG from companies. Those companies are usually national champions or Western multinationals, often with cross-ownership, joint ventures, long-term contracts, and dollar-denominated trade. Avoiding US or Russian molecules is not the same as avoiding US or Russian companies, and avoiding both simultaneously is structurally very difficult. 🇺🇸 United States (largest LNG exporter globally) Major suppliers: Cheniere Energy — United States ExxonMobil — United States Chevron — United States Reality US LNG dominates the spot market Europe relies on. Even “non-US” cargoes often trade through US-based financial and shipping systems. 🇷🇺 Russia Major suppliers: Novatek — Russia Gazprom — Russia Reality Russian LNG (especially Yamal) remains competitive and legally distinct from pipeline gas in many sanctions regimes. 🇶🇦 Qatar (Middle East’s LNG superpower) Major supplier: QatarEnergy — Qatar Reality Supplies are mostly locked into long-term Asian contracts. Expansion helps Europe, but volumes are not fully flexible. Pricing often indexed to oil, not ideal for Europe’s spot-market preference. 🇳🇴 Norway (Europe’s main gas producer — but not LNG-dominant) Major supplier: Equinor — Norway Reality Mostly pipeline gas, not LNG. LNG volumes are limited and already heavily utilized. 🇫🇷 / 🇬🇧 / 🇮🇹 Europe-based multinationals (Important: these are European companies, but gas is global) Major suppliers: TotalEnergies — France Shell — United Kingdom Eni — Italy Reality These firms produce LNG in: Qatar Nigeria Mozambique US Buying from them does not mean avoiding US or Russian gas molecules. 🌍 Africa (often misunderstood) Major suppliers: Nigeria LNG — Nigeria Sonatrach — Algeria Ownership reality Nigeria LNG includes Shell, TotalEnergies, and Eni. Algeria’s LNG is constrained by aging infrastructure and domestic demand. Africa cannot: Rapidly scale volumes Replace US LNG Avoid Western corporate involvement 🇦🇺 Australia (major exporter — limited relevance to Europe) Major suppliers: Woodside Energy — Australia Santos — Australia Reality Most volumes are contractually tied to Asia. Freight distance makes Europe uneconomic except in crises. The structural constraint (this is decisive) ❌ “Just buy from Africa / Middle East / Europe” — why this fails Claim and Objective reality Buy from Africa - African LNG is small, constrained, and Western-operated Buy from Middle East - Qatar LNG is contract-locked and oil-indexed Buy from Europe- Europe does not produce enough LNG Avoid US companies - Spot LNG markets are US-anchored Avoid Russian gas - Requires paying higher prices or signing long contracts Bottom line (objective, no ideology) Europe cannot selectively bypass US and Russian LNG while maintaining price stability, supply security, and flexibility. What Europe can do is: Reduce exposure gradually Diversify marginal volumes Accept higher costs and longer contracts Trade flexibility for political insulation That is a trade-off, not a free choice.

Some words are less conscious or appropriate than violence.

@Elliott This is beneath you. Perhaps someone needs to point out people need energy to you. So they have to buy it from somewhere, either the US or Russia are the easiest sellers. In 2027 LNG is scheduled to be phased out from Russia to the EU, so I don't doubt they are stocking up as they make other arrangements. Chat GPT also reminds me that buying now is a cheap price whereas later when the bans come in it will not be cheap, and as these countries are transit hubs (i.e not buying for themselves), many countries are putting orders through them.

@Elliott Where do we get our energy from then, thin air? Industry runs on things like gas or oil, yours too. There is the devil in the east or the devil in the west. The devil in the east keeps threatening to nuke us and is actively trying to destabalise our countries, the devil in the west is mostly all talk on foreign policy, until relatively recently anyway.

We are not close to world peace this year as was discussed above. This year is going to be a hellish year with a lot of violence. There are so many things occurring and so much instability; this is an easy prediction to make.

Yes. Everything has an infinite amount of possible perspectives on it. You asked what they are rebelling against. What I listed is a general overview.

BTW I support controlled and reduced immigration in the UK, taking into account emigration its at 500,000 net it used to be 50,000 net, imho it needs to be below 100,000 to maintain a stable society. In fact I should investigate what figures would maintain stability in more detail. @Salvijus

Suppression and Heavy Handedness. Police State. Arresting of political opponents and opposing voters. Aggression toward neighboring states. Censorship. Authoritarian power grab. Primarily, the paramilitary forces that were used against the population. This is the primary and intended flashpoint of the current regime in America to cause fear and violence.

So i've watched the videos in more detail fom multiple views. The woman tried to drive off. The Ice agent guy tried to stand in her way and opened fire. This is textbook stupidity from any law enforcement perspective. Putting himself in the path of the vehicle is incredibly dangerous. Civilians do stupid things all the time, from fear, mental issues, aggression etc, and putting yourself in positions to be in the way of that stupidity is incompetence; in this case, as it cost a life, gross incompetence. But this is paramilitary, designed to antagonise the population, so its working as intended. Its killing citizens that dare to resist fascism. Its one of the screws to make the country more like Russia or China. There are many of them in play, but this is one of the overt things that happen. Dissenters are shot, opposition politicians are arrested, fear is weaponized, etc. America is a far right country moving into a dictatorship. It will be overturned by revolution or not at all. The Democrats don't have the spine or will to do so, the likely pattern is gradual social engineering of the population to be further authoritarian and right-wing and suppression of democracy.

This is what happens during civil unrest and rebellion. A lot more people are going to die if the fascists keep pushing. Just like Iran.

I disagree entirely that perspective arguments are not relevant to the central point, but I respect your request.

Although it is a more helpful focus, I am showing you the meta level of the problem. When you say A B C to me here I then interpret that to mean something. You then interpret that to mean something else. We then still have a disconnect. If you instead look at how A, B or C relate to each other, although we might interpret it differently, you'll be able to more directly achieve an outcome or understand what happens when someone is responding to you more directly. Especially as I, for example, have what you might consider left/right and spiritual tendencies. (Left Right is such a flawed axis when looked at in a global context that its often as confusing as it is helpful).

I agree but the problem with that is, you'll still only have your own perception of what their identity means to them, even if they tell you it in their own words, then there is still a disconnect through interpretation. The only real approach is to see how the two identities relate to each other. That's the only thing you'll have first hand understanding of.

Everything relies on how you perceive the world. There is no other method of forming a framework within which to act, other than your senses and pattern recognition. Meditation, dreamwork, your inner voice, and accessing the subconscious or greater mind can assist. Trouble is with most of that, its usually a metaphor that most people take literally or never fully understand, but then the journey there is usually the point. You are correct that someone's identity shapes their responses. If you remove the identity, life is simple (and quite beautiful) but its also a catalyst for being at the mercy of everyone else actively engaging in life.

Dictators do not like authority outside of their own controlling anything

I do feel in many ways the EU is surrounded by enemies and is left with no choice but to fight or diminish. Its a dangerous situation for some of the best-trained, technologically capable, and, quite frankly, experienced countries at fighting war on the planet. Influence is under attack in Africa, Russia is pressing from the east, and now in the far west America is ready to attack. The EU countries need nuclear profileration and they need to rearm quicker than they are doing.

I'd just remove America from the countries that can ever receive it and blacklist them. Then we'll see where the power of the award lies. If that becomes impossible, it's time for a new award structure.

Its a wonderful experience. Infinite—Insert whatever here. Is infinity. Your identity is what you take from that and decide it is.

Earth is largely about the continuation and reproduction of life.

You perceive things in a way you can or want to understand them.

Alright i'll rephrase. Its a poor way to order anything. People have thousands of years fighting over borders, disparity of strengths and influence, no central authority, a dwindling climate, and overreach on resources like water. Just saying multipolar, to me and I am sorry to the people fighting or arguing for this, sounds extremely naive. Its just chaos waiting to happen. - And is indeed chaos happening before our eyes. Rules do not imply that countries are subordinate to rules alone. They are subordinate to the authority enforcing them. People don't follow rules they don't like just because they exist; they follow them because if they do not, they are made to. Countries are arming themselves as other countries are threatening their sovereignty, borders, treaties, established institutions, populations, trade and national interests. With no authority to keep countries in check, people do whatever they like. More specifically North Korea have been given Nukes so they are capable of threatening South Korea and Japan should war break out, ditto Belarus threatening Poland and Eastern Europe.

All true but if they were trained how to interact with the public and do their job more thoroughly, this would be less likely to happen. I understand you will argue this is part of the design, but others may counter, so this data is useful. Ice apparently gets 47 days of training; if we charitably say they get 8 hours each day, that's 376 hours, which is 11 times less than the best-trained forces around the globe and half as long as regular American police, who are woefully undertrained, Regular police get almost 7 times less hours than India for example. Someone can argue American training is more effective, but I doubt by a factor of ten.

Yes. Which is paramount to anything else. Order and structure stops the planet becoming a wasteland; without it people do whatever they can get away with. At present countries don't have nukes because America stops them. BRICS have just given up stopping people and are now arming them, Belarus and North Korea for example. If this trend continues, we will have nuclear proliferation all over the world, and a considerably higher likelihood of ending the planet in the current multipolar no-order dynamic.