US strategic military positioning is approximately a trillion times more important than a few billion barrels of oil.
If you had 10 billion barrels of oil, at $80, and you manage to extract 3/4 of it over 30-40 years. Maybe you get a net $5-$10 billion per year economic benefit from that if you're lucky as the US. The US military budget is $800 billion every single year. The US isn't doing this for oil, it's about positioning vs other world powers.
Military projection, global strategic positioning, always trumps something like oil (especially when the US has plenty of that resource).
The US went into Iraq because of Russia, not because of oil. That was a Pentagon program to try to strip Russian influence out of the Middle East, stated directly by four star general Wesley Clark.
The US went into Syria because of Russia, not because of oil. The US is still in Syria because of Russia, not oil.
Most (not all) of what the US does in the Middle East is a power conflict with Russia.
Most of what the US now does in Asia is a power conflict with China.
Oil is a little toy chip on the table compared to the real stakes.
While I would agree that Russia was an aspect of the motivation for those incursions, I disagree that it is the total explanation. Russia is an aspect of a larger picture. After all, we don't go to war with Nations simply because they exist or are influential anywhere. There's a larger picture, just as the war in Ukraine is part of a larger picture than "freedom" or any other such condescending explanation.
The mainly-Russia explanation is also too convenient on a number of counts. First, in this current era of anti-Russian sentiment, it offers the large number of people that were responsible for the widely panned Iraq invasion an "out" that is, just now, socially acceptable.
These are people that are still neurotic about their attachment to the accepted situation that the predicate for the invasion was a lie. A neuroticism that is evident for anyone paying attention to what they still write with some consistency.
All national strength and well-being has an economic basis. Especially military projection. One can't separate our percieved interest in "getting Russia out of the Middle East", or some such, from economic interest. Or at least from economic calculus. Anyone attempting to sell such a tale should be suspect (not you, necessarily).
There are other massive red flags that indicate what the Iraq invasion was about, in terms of a larger picture. These stare in the face anyone willing to look, as they hide in plain sight. At the same time, at least one is inclusive of both the Russia and oil angles. I won't talk about that one. Look harder. Reinterpret crucial data for that era in a different manner from what we are widely told its nature was (and is). Its actual nature is sensible. What we are told about it is not.
The other motivation is military positioning, but has a scope that is well beyond Russia and China.
This "anti Russian sentiment" is nothing new. It's what is called political realism. It has always existed in Eastern Europe as they were more clear eyed when it comes to Russia. It has been also clearly present in US but the official rhetoric has been more soporific toward Russia. But it doesn't make sense to pretend anymore when Russia has opened its cards wide to everyone to see.
That's your nitpick and reason for taking the time to write? That the phrase "anti Russian sentiment" isn't instead presented as natural and eternal but instead as something that ebbs and flows? Go scream at a wall.
The so called anti-Russian sentiment is nothing new. If we take US then it took the most clear form after WW2 when the real ambitions of communism infected Russia became clear to the US leadership.
It didn't disappear even during the interim period between end of 90s and recent years when many fooled themselves with false ideas how Russia is now their partner/friend/not enemy. There was still impactful number if congressmen and senarots who kept the realistic understanding.
So please, if you are not educated about the topic then please don't start calling names when you are corrected.
>The mainly-Russia explanation is also too convenient on a number of counts. First, in this current era of anti-Russian sentiment, it offers the large number of people that were responsible for the widely panned Iraq invasion an "out" that is, just now, socially acceptable.
To be fair to them, the video they're referring to with Wesley Clark is from 15-ish years ago.
"Even though it is a non-party to UNCLOS, the U.S. has stated its claim within the internationally agreed framework of that Convention. That means any disputes are likely to be settled according to the Law of the Sea as agreed by most United Nations member states."
But what do countries do when they share a continental shelf with other countries? It seems like this only applies to countries that are very large.
And also they're basically claiming land right outside Russia at a time when tensions between the US and Russia are at an all time high in 40 years. Based on something they and their allies in the UN signed back in 1982.
Maybe I'm reading this wrong but I see no indication that Russia signed.[1]
Not trying to claim anything politically, just random thoughts on this article from an IT person who is not well versed in any politics.
The US is also upset that Russia had been making its own Arctic ECS claims through proper legal channels:
> Russia has cleared the scientific burden of proof required to have its extended continental shelf claim legitimized. Decades of scientific research, Arctic missions, and information exchanges with Denmark and Canada have resulted in the U.N. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf dubbing the majority of Moscow’s claim to an extended Arctic continental shelf to be “valid.”
I just watched the video from the Guardian about Russia claming their own territory based on ECS.
If both Russia and the US intend to exploit these resources, while the public make the switch to more renewable sources of energy, then this is clearly intended for military use primarily.
I remember reading somewhere that the DoD collectively is the largest producer of pollution in the world.
The Executive Summary [0] cites the 1990 maritime boundary agreement between the U.S. and USSR [1] to justify its placement of the western ECS border. In that agreement, Article 1 says:
> Each Party shall respect the maritime boundary as limiting the extent of its coastal state jurisdiction otherwise permitted by international law for any purpose.
And Article 5 clarifies:
> For the purposes of this Agreement, "coastal state jurisdiction" refers to the sovereignty, sovereign rights, or any other form of jurisdiction with respect to the waters or seabed and subsoil that may be exercised by a coastal state in accordance with the international law of the sea.
So in the U.S.'s view, the agreement clearly extends to ECS jurisdiction over the seabed and subsoil. The remaining question is whether Russia will continue to repsect the agreement that was made with the USSR.
Basically the US used data to enlarge its ECS by two Californias. Most importantly in the arctic near Alaska.
> Although not a signatory to the convention itself, the U.S. recognizes UNCLOS as the basis for international maritime law and in 1983 declared its own 200-mile EEZ. America’s EEZ was the largest in the world
This is gonna matter a lot now that countries are starting to explore mining the seabeds for minerals
The troops that invaded Ukraine were also built up on Russia's territory. Military build-ups on one's border are a security concern. The fact that they're still on the other side just says you aren't shooting yet.
"In 2023, which country used the Mariana Islands to infringe on territory claimed by Japan? A) China B) Russia C) The United Statea of America or D) Taiwan"
> The Executive Summary makes clear that both Canada and The Bahamas have indicated they would not object to the CLCS considering the U.S. submission, but it does not mention any explicit assurance from Japan.
> ... Canada has advised the United States that it would not object to the consideration of a U.S. submission by the Commission, without prejudice both to the delineation of the outer limits of its own continental shelf and to the matters relating to the delimitation of boundaries in this region between the United States and Canada. The Bahamas has similarly advised the United States that it would not object to the consideration of a U.S. submission by the Commission, without prejudice both to the delineation of the outer limits of its own continental shelf and to the matters relating to the delimitation of boundaries in this region between the United States and The Bahamas.
34 comments
[ 0.19 ms ] story [ 75.2 ms ] threadIf you had 10 billion barrels of oil, at $80, and you manage to extract 3/4 of it over 30-40 years. Maybe you get a net $5-$10 billion per year economic benefit from that if you're lucky as the US. The US military budget is $800 billion every single year. The US isn't doing this for oil, it's about positioning vs other world powers.
Military projection, global strategic positioning, always trumps something like oil (especially when the US has plenty of that resource).
The US went into Iraq because of Russia, not because of oil. That was a Pentagon program to try to strip Russian influence out of the Middle East, stated directly by four star general Wesley Clark.
The US went into Syria because of Russia, not because of oil. The US is still in Syria because of Russia, not oil.
Most (not all) of what the US does in the Middle East is a power conflict with Russia.
Most of what the US now does in Asia is a power conflict with China.
Oil is a little toy chip on the table compared to the real stakes.
The mainly-Russia explanation is also too convenient on a number of counts. First, in this current era of anti-Russian sentiment, it offers the large number of people that were responsible for the widely panned Iraq invasion an "out" that is, just now, socially acceptable.
These are people that are still neurotic about their attachment to the accepted situation that the predicate for the invasion was a lie. A neuroticism that is evident for anyone paying attention to what they still write with some consistency.
All national strength and well-being has an economic basis. Especially military projection. One can't separate our percieved interest in "getting Russia out of the Middle East", or some such, from economic interest. Or at least from economic calculus. Anyone attempting to sell such a tale should be suspect (not you, necessarily).
There are other massive red flags that indicate what the Iraq invasion was about, in terms of a larger picture. These stare in the face anyone willing to look, as they hide in plain sight. At the same time, at least one is inclusive of both the Russia and oil angles. I won't talk about that one. Look harder. Reinterpret crucial data for that era in a different manner from what we are widely told its nature was (and is). Its actual nature is sensible. What we are told about it is not.
The other motivation is military positioning, but has a scope that is well beyond Russia and China.
You followed up by confirming that your aim is to troll. Which matches the profile, and allows us to discount anything that you write.
It didn't disappear even during the interim period between end of 90s and recent years when many fooled themselves with false ideas how Russia is now their partner/friend/not enemy. There was still impactful number if congressmen and senarots who kept the realistic understanding.
So please, if you are not educated about the topic then please don't start calling names when you are corrected.
To be fair to them, the video they're referring to with Wesley Clark is from 15-ish years ago.
This is the result of a 20-year data-collecting project to measure the U.S.'s extended continental shelf (ECS), conducted by NOAA.
And also they're basically claiming land right outside Russia at a time when tensions between the US and Russia are at an all time high in 40 years. Based on something they and their allies in the UN signed back in 1982.
Maybe I'm reading this wrong but I see no indication that Russia signed.[1]
Not trying to claim anything politically, just random thoughts on this article from an IT person who is not well versed in any politics.
1. https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetailsIII.aspx?src=TREATY...
[0] https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/full/10.1139/cjes-2022-0069#se...
If you search on the page you linked, the Russian Federation signed it on March 12, 1997. As the other commenter notes, the US hasn't signed it.
https://warontherocks.com/2023/10/getting-sporty-in-russias-...
The US is also upset that Russia had been making its own Arctic ECS claims through proper legal channels:
> Russia has cleared the scientific burden of proof required to have its extended continental shelf claim legitimized. Decades of scientific research, Arctic missions, and information exchanges with Denmark and Canada have resulted in the U.N. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf dubbing the majority of Moscow’s claim to an extended Arctic continental shelf to be “valid.”
https://warontherocks.com/2023/05/russias-gains-in-the-great...
I just watched the video from the Guardian about Russia claming their own territory based on ECS.
If both Russia and the US intend to exploit these resources, while the public make the switch to more renewable sources of energy, then this is clearly intended for military use primarily.
I remember reading somewhere that the DoD collectively is the largest producer of pollution in the world.
> Each Party shall respect the maritime boundary as limiting the extent of its coastal state jurisdiction otherwise permitted by international law for any purpose.
And Article 5 clarifies:
> For the purposes of this Agreement, "coastal state jurisdiction" refers to the sovereignty, sovereign rights, or any other form of jurisdiction with respect to the waters or seabed and subsoil that may be exercised by a coastal state in accordance with the international law of the sea.
So in the U.S.'s view, the agreement clearly extends to ECS jurisdiction over the seabed and subsoil. The remaining question is whether Russia will continue to repsect the agreement that was made with the USSR.
[0] https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/ECS_Executi...
[1] https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/US_Russia_1...
> Although not a signatory to the convention itself, the U.S. recognizes UNCLOS as the basis for international maritime law and in 1983 declared its own 200-mile EEZ. America’s EEZ was the largest in the world
This is gonna matter a lot now that countries are starting to explore mining the seabeds for minerals
Related: https://tass.com/science/1737959
The troops that invaded Ukraine were also built up on Russia's territory. Military build-ups on one's border are a security concern. The fact that they're still on the other side just says you aren't shooting yet.
"In 2023, which country used the Mariana Islands to infringe on territory claimed by Japan? A) China B) Russia C) The United Statea of America or D) Taiwan"
> The Executive Summary makes clear that both Canada and The Bahamas have indicated they would not object to the CLCS considering the U.S. submission, but it does not mention any explicit assurance from Japan.
Indeed Japan is conspicuously left out (https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/ECS_Executi...)
> ... Canada has advised the United States that it would not object to the consideration of a U.S. submission by the Commission, without prejudice both to the delineation of the outer limits of its own continental shelf and to the matters relating to the delimitation of boundaries in this region between the United States and Canada. The Bahamas has similarly advised the United States that it would not object to the consideration of a U.S. submission by the Commission, without prejudice both to the delineation of the outer limits of its own continental shelf and to the matters relating to the delimitation of boundaries in this region between the United States and The Bahamas.
https://thehill.com/policy/international/4423913-state-dept-...