Ukraine- The Underappreciated Risks of Catastrophic Escalation...

[Sjouke Burry]

On 21.08.22 1:37, Flyguy wrote:

On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 11:13:29 AM UTC-7, Don Y wrote:
On 8/20/2022 9:47 AM, rbowman wrote:
On 08/20/2022 12:42 AM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/19/2022 11:26 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 08/19/2022 08:06 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/19/2022 6:46 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 08/19/2022 11:04 AM, Don Y wrote:
Gotta wonder when China decides his credit isn\'t any good and opts
for something more tangible -- like RUSSIAN REAL ESTATE - to pay his
dues.

You mean like China is acquiring US real estate?

No, they\'re *paying* for it. I suspect Russia will find
itself having to gift bits of real estate to their uber-lords.

Doubtful. I don\'t think you appreciate that the times they are a\'changin\'

If we buy stuffed animals (etc) from china and china decides to
use those monies to buy real estate here, so be it. They could
equally opt to buy something else from somewhere else.

But, if China is the sole (significant) supporter of Russia,
then everything Russia needs comes from (or through) China.
China expects to be compensated just like any other sale.

Russia is a tiny economy. What are they going to have to offer
to China, in the long run?


You really need to pay attention:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/20/energy/china-russia-oil-imports-record/index.html

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-29/russian-gas-pivot-toward-china-will-ease-europe-s-energy-crunch

That \'tiny economy\' seems to have Europe by the balls at the moment.
Oil is an obsolescent product. There have been similar situations
(with other products) throughout recent history. They are transitory.

You are as much of a wishful thinker as Bozo Bill - we will NEVER get away from oil. How far do you think an electric 737 is going to get you?


We waited in LONG lines in the 70\'s \"oil embargo\". \"By the balls\".
When was the last time you had more than two cars ahead of you at
the gas station?

That would be every day at Costco if you go anytime but very early or very late.


We\'ve had \"chip shortages\" in the past. \"On allocation\". Then,
we didn\'t.

\"Allocation\" means rationing; in Russia food is \"allocated.\"


Because things change. Societies and businesses adapt.

For products like oil, once folks move away from it, it\'s unlikely
that the demand will rematerialize. It\'s not the sort of decision
you can revisit on a weekly basis (like whether or not you want to
start eating Iranian pistachios, again)

Tell me, WHAT are you going to replace plastics with???

Using only re-usable plastic?
And reducing the number of plastics from hundreds of
different types?

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 3:57:27 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:

On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 9:45:07 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 10:48:46 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, August 19, 2022 at 11:03:54 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 3:58:18 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, August 19, 2022 at 1:44:11 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
On 8/19/2022 10:22 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, August 19, 2022 at 1:04:53 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
On 8/19/2022 6:45 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 3:02:43 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
On 8/17/2022 10:00 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
snip.
That\'s how Russia fights wars. They don\'t care about losses. They lost about as many people just taking Grozny as they have in Ukraine so far.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grozny

They ended up having to take Grozny twice. Not a Russian triumph that they will celebrate.

\"In August 1996, a raiding force of 1,500 to 3,000 militants recaptured the city in a surprise attack. They surrounded and routed its entire garrison of 10,000 MVD troops, while fighting off the Russian Army units from the Khankala base. The battle ended with a final ceasefire and Grozny was once again in the hands of Chechen separatists.\"

Chechnya is quite a bit smaller than the Ukraine - 1.4 million people as opposed to 44 million.

True, but the terrain is hell and the Chechens are insane. Every bit of the figures of losses published by Russia is a lie. They were slaughtered.

At some point everybody cares about losses. When you are close to not having an army any more, losing the last few soldiers that you have left isn\'t a good idea.

Apparently fighting Russia is not enough for them, they\'re compelled to send Jihadists to a bunch of other conflicts.

Jihadists are nuts. There aren\'t all that many of them, and they aren\'t relevant to this discussion.

Putin is going to get pushback from the parents of the dead conscripts a lot earlier than that. He will try to ride roughshod over it, but there are limits to that too.

I take issue with that idea. Russians don\'t give a damn about human life.

The ones I\'ve known have been pretty normal in that respect..

Anything you\'ve read about grieving relatives is a fabrication to deceive people of western, mostly Christian, culture.

You think that the Russians aren\'t Christian? The Russian Orthodox Church would disagree, and the only professor of theology of my acquaintance - a Methodist - definitely includes the Russian Orthodox Church in the groups he is ecumenical with.

I\'m not at all onboard with that church after the way they kowtowed to the Romanov\'s.

The Romanov\'s haven\'t been around for quite a whle, and your ideas on the subject aren\'t relevant.

The modern day products of at least four generations of communist atheism have a completely different mindset.

The communist party was always a small proportion of the population, and very few of them were enthusiastic atheists. The Communist Party didn\'t want the churches competing in the business of installing irrational ideas into the minds of the population, but after the downfall of the party in Russia in 1990, their opinion didn\'t matter. Putin goes to the trouble of looking like an adherent of the Orthodox Church from time to time, not that he\'s representative of the mindset of the population.

If you admitted to any religious beliefs on a college admissions application, you were immediately rejected as being a mentally unstable type.

Not to mention much too stupid to do well in tertiary education. Everybody lies on college admission applications, and most people do know what the college wants to see.

From what I\'ve read the Russian army is all volunteer, they haven\'t started conscription yet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Russia

Your problem is you\'re completely lacking the slightest iota of critical thinking skills.

As opposed to your unwillingness to look at anything that doesn\'t suit your argument.

Not going waste my time reading that dumb article, but right off it says \"Conscripts are generally prohibited from being deployed abroad.\" I would assume Ukraine is abroad to them, but you never know. The news summaries by reputable organizations with reporters who really understand these places, say there is no conscription for Ukraine.

Putin\'s point is that the Ukraine is really part of Russia. Of course there isn\'t explicit conscription for the Ukraine - conscription doesn\'t work like that.

You seem to need to find better sources to read. And the relatives of volunteers aren\'t any happier when they end up dead.

They don\'t give a damn.

A somewhat less-than-plausible claim.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 9:25:40 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

On Friday, August 19, 2022 at 10:04:53 AM UTC-7, Don Y wrote:
On 8/19/2022 6:45 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 3:02:43 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
On 8/17/2022 10:00 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote:

<snip>

Maybe we should beat our chest as well -- send military transports
into UKRAINIAN airspace and tell Putin, \"You\'d better not interfere
with them as we\'ve got the bomber fleet on full alert -- and have
notified our NATO allies of our readiness to counterattack
with overwhelming force...\"

LOL! Do you REALLY expect Joe Biden to \"beat his chest?\"

That\'s not the way it gets done - as was spelled out for you in the rest of the paragraph, not that you have the attention span to process that much data.

> He would most likely have a heart attack if he did. This is why he is wearing aviator sunglasses - so people won\'t see how sunken his eyeballs are.

Gnatguy has some very silly ideas.

Then, see who blinks.

That would be Joe Biden.

Not really. That kind of decision is taken by a group of people who have - between them - the kind of expertise you need to navigate that kind of strategically interesting situation. Biden will be there, and he might have to make a final choice if the collective opinion was split, but it is unlikely, and if it gets that close it\'s essentially a coin toss anyway.

I\'m sure he\'d realize that any archives of his country that survive
likely wouldn\'t remember him as a \"hero\" but, rather, the person who
was responsible for their apocalyptic living conditions.

[Unless, of course, he thinks he can defeat all of NATO with his
current record of \"progress\" against Ukraine?]

One thing we know for sure, now, is Putin is Xi\'s lap dog and
likely to remain so till his death -- going to China, hat-in-hand
for foodstuffs, military supplies, etc.

So is Joe Biden.

Bizarre delusion. The US may depend on China to keep it\'s supermarkets full on consumer goodies, but the US military-industrial complex doesn\'t like the US government spending money of defense equipment that they don\'t make. The US s a food exporter (which China isn\'t).

Gotta wonder when China decides his credit isn\'t any good and opts
for something more tangible -- like RUSSIAN REAL ESTATE - to pay his dues.

No, China will just take oil and minerals for payment.

In Gnatguy\'s ever-so-expert opinion.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 9:38:02 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 11:13:29 AM UTC-7, Don Y wrote:
On 8/20/2022 9:47 AM, rbowman wrote:
On 08/20/2022 12:42 AM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/19/2022 11:26 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 08/19/2022 08:06 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/19/2022 6:46 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 08/19/2022 11:04 AM, Don Y wrote:
Gotta wonder when China decides his credit isn\'t any good and opts
for something more tangible -- like RUSSIAN REAL ESTATE - to pay his
dues.

You mean like China is acquiring US real estate?

No, they\'re *paying* for it. I suspect Russia will find
itself having to gift bits of real estate to their uber-lords.

Doubtful. I don\'t think you appreciate that the times they are a\'changin\'

If we buy stuffed animals (etc) from china and china decides to
use those monies to buy real estate here, so be it. They could
equally opt to buy something else from somewhere else.

But, if China is the sole (significant) supporter of Russia,
then everything Russia needs comes from (or through) China.
China expects to be compensated just like any other sale.

Russia is a tiny economy. What are they going to have to offer
to China, in the long run?


You really need to pay attention:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/20/energy/china-russia-oil-imports-record/index.html

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-29/russian-gas-pivot-toward-china-will-ease-europe-s-energy-crunch

That \'tiny economy\' seems to have Europe by the balls at the moment.
Oil is an obsolescent product. There have been similar situations
(with other products) throughout recent history. They are transitory.

You are as much of a wishful thinker as Bill - we will NEVER get away from oil.

But even the US going to burn a lot less of it. Gnatguy really doesn\'t understand that solar cells and wind turbines are the cheapest source of energy around, and have been for a few year now. You got to back them up with grid storage, which Gnatguy imagines to be impractical.

Gnatguy\'s \"wishful thinking\" is just thinking that is a bit better informed than he can manage.

> How far do you think an electric 737 is going to get you?

If you want a 737 equivalent that is fuelled by liquid hydrogen, you are going to have to wait a bit, and it\'s going to look a bit different - liquid hydrogen doesn\'t offer the volumetric energy density that you can get out of hydrocarbons.

The 737 market is more likely to end up being served by railways running in evacuated tunnels - it\'s a more capital intensive solution, but the running costs are lot lower.

We waited in LONG lines in the 70\'s \"oil embargo\". \"By the balls\".
When was the last time you had more than two cars ahead of you at
the gas station?

That would be every day at Costco if you go anytime but very early or very late.

So why go to Costco?

We\'ve had \"chip shortages\" in the past. \"On allocation\". Then, we didn\'t.

\"Allocation\" means rationing; in Russia food is \"allocated.\"

\"Allocation\" just means that demand currently exceeds supply. In a capitalist (or any well-run) economy, that means that money will be invested in increasing supply.

Rationing happens when you can\'t increase supply.

Because things change. Societies and businesses adapt.

For products like oil, once folks move away from it, it\'s unlikely
that the demand will rematerialize. It\'s not the sort of decision
you can revisit on a weekly basis (like whether or not you want to
start eating Iranian pistachios, again).

Tell me, WHAT are you going to replace plastics with???

Which plastic do you want to replace, and why? Teflon/PTFE has very specialised advantages.

I prefer polycarbonate capacitors to polyethylene. Polypropylene has it is uses, and but getting the same capacitance uses up more volume.

None of them get burnt and turned into CO2, so even the most avid greeny isn\'t going to want to ban any of them. The oil industry won\'t earn as much money if plastic manufacturers are their main market, but what business there is may be just as profitable.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 11:29:37 AM UTC+10, rbowman wrote:

On 08/20/2022 12:13 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/20/2022 9:47 AM, rbowman wrote:
On 08/20/2022 12:42 AM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/19/2022 11:26 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 08/19/2022 08:06 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/19/2022 6:46 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 08/19/2022 11:04 AM, Don Y wrote:

<snip>

> To reiterate: \'have Europe by the balls\'.

They\'ve got a short term advantage.

> Germany decided shutting down that last nuke wasn\'t a good idea and are bringing coal fired plants back on line.

For the moment. The long term strategy was always to reduce the amount of oil and gas imported and burnt. This is just an additional encouragement to do it faster

> Suck it up, Greens.

The Greens are probably gloating. They want to get Germany to be lot less dependent on burning fossil carbon, and now the country has an additional motivation to invest even more in renewable energy sources.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 10:57:27 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:

On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 9:45:07 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 10:48:46 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:

From what I\'ve read the Russian army is all volunteer, they haven\'t started conscription yet.

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

Your problem is you\'re completely lacking the slightest iota of critical thinking skills. Not going waste my time reading that dumb article, but right off it says \"Conscripts are generally prohibited from being deployed abroad.\"

Russia (and before it dissolved, the USSR) practiced near-universal conscription; NATO was
intended to ensure that a nation which could, in principle, call up reserves and put an all-of-Europe
occupation force in the field, would not gat a chance to do that.

Not only is Russia sending conscripts anywhere and everywhere they want, they\'ve pulled in
auxiliaries, from Syria and Libya; the fiction that Crimea is Russia means that disputed
territory in Ukraine is not a location \'abroad\'.

Russian rhetoric and principle statements bear a heavy load of fiction.

 

[rbowman]

On 08/20/2022 08:40 PM, Sjouke Burry wrote:

On 21.08.22 1:37, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 11:13:29 AM UTC-7, Don Y wrote:
On 8/20/2022 9:47 AM, rbowman wrote:
On 08/20/2022 12:42 AM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/19/2022 11:26 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 08/19/2022 08:06 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/19/2022 6:46 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 08/19/2022 11:04 AM, Don Y wrote:
Gotta wonder when China decides his credit isn\'t any good and opts
for something more tangible -- like RUSSIAN REAL ESTATE - to
pay his
dues.

You mean like China is acquiring US real estate?

No, they\'re *paying* for it. I suspect Russia will find
itself having to gift bits of real estate to their uber-lords.

Doubtful. I don\'t think you appreciate that the times they are
a\'changin\'

If we buy stuffed animals (etc) from china and china decides to
use those monies to buy real estate here, so be it. They could
equally opt to buy something else from somewhere else.

But, if China is the sole (significant) supporter of Russia,
then everything Russia needs comes from (or through) China.
China expects to be compensated just like any other sale.

Russia is a tiny economy. What are they going to have to offer
to China, in the long run?


You really need to pay attention:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/20/energy/china-russia-oil-imports-record/index.html


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-29/russian-gas-pivot-toward-china-will-ease-europe-s-energy-crunch


That \'tiny economy\' seems to have Europe by the balls at the moment.
Oil is an obsolescent product. There have been similar situations
(with other products) throughout recent history. They are transitory.

You are as much of a wishful thinker as Bozo Bill - we will NEVER get
away from oil. How far do you think an electric 737 is going to get you?


We waited in LONG lines in the 70\'s \"oil embargo\". \"By the balls\".
When was the last time you had more than two cars ahead of you at
the gas station?

That would be every day at Costco if you go anytime but very early or
very late.


We\'ve had \"chip shortages\" in the past. \"On allocation\". Then,
we didn\'t.

\"Allocation\" means rationing; in Russia food is \"allocated.\"


Because things change. Societies and businesses adapt.

For products like oil, once folks move away from it, it\'s unlikely
that the demand will rematerialize. It\'s not the sort of decision
you can revisit on a weekly basis (like whether or not you want to
start eating Iranian pistachios, again)

Tell me, WHAT are you going to replace plastics with???

Using only re-usable plastic?
And reducing the number of plastics from hundreds of
different types?

Thermoset plastics like the phenolics are not recyclable. There is a
reason for the many different thermoplastics. Chemical resistance, ease
of molding, rigidity, gas permeability, and other criteria all factor in.

Back in the early \'70s during the oil embargo attempts were made to
replace phenolic molding resins with furfural derivatives from
agricultural waste like corncobs. It didn\'t go well. Maybe in time with
the redesign of molds and parts it could be made to work but the crisis
didn\'t last long enough.

 

[rbowman]

On 08/20/2022 09:51 PM, whit3rd wrote:

On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 10:57:27 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 9:45:07 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 10:48:46 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:

From what I\'ve read the Russian army is all volunteer, they haven\'t started conscription yet.

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

Your problem is you\'re completely lacking the slightest iota of critical thinking skills. Not going waste my time reading that dumb article, but right off it says \"Conscripts are generally prohibited from being deployed abroad.\"

Russia (and before it dissolved, the USSR) practiced near-universal conscription; NATO was
intended to ensure that a nation which could, in principle, call up reserves and put an all-of-Europe
occupation force in the field, would not gat a chance to do that.

Not only is Russia sending conscripts anywhere and everywhere they want, they\'ve pulled in
auxiliaries, from Syria and Libya; the fiction that Crimea is Russia means that disputed
territory in Ukraine is not a location \'abroad\'.

Russian rhetoric and principle statements bear a heavy load of fiction.

For fiction nothing can match Zelensky\'s comedy routines.

 

[Don Y]

On 8/20/2022 6:29 PM, rbowman wrote:

On 08/20/2022 12:13 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/20/2022 9:47 AM, rbowman wrote:
On 08/20/2022 12:42 AM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/19/2022 11:26 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 08/19/2022 08:06 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/19/2022 6:46 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 08/19/2022 11:04 AM, Don Y wrote:
Gotta wonder when China decides his credit isn\'t any good and opts
for something more tangible -- like RUSSIAN REAL ESTATE - to pay his
dues.

You mean like China is acquiring US real estate?

No, they\'re *paying* for it. I suspect Russia will find
itself having to gift bits of real estate to their uber-lords.

Doubtful. I don\'t think you appreciate that the times they are
a\'changin\'

If we buy stuffed animals (etc) from china and china decides to
use those monies to buy real estate here, so be it. They could
equally opt to buy something else from somewhere else.

But, if China is the sole (significant) supporter of Russia,
then everything Russia needs comes from (or through) China.
China expects to be compensated just like any other sale.

Russia is a tiny economy. What are they going to have to offer
to China, in the long run?


You really need to pay attention:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/20/energy/china-russia-oil-imports-record/index.html



https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-29/russian-gas-pivot-toward-china-will-ease-europe-s-energy-crunch


That \'tiny economy\' seems to have Europe by the balls at the moment.

Oil is an obsolescent product. There have been similar situations
(with other products) throughout recent history. They are transitory.

Dream on.

Look at the rate at which (burned) petroleum products were used 50
years ago. Houses in New England (cold winters) with NO insulation
in walls were not uncommon -- cheaper to just burn heating oil
than to waste money on insulation. Efficient cars got ~15 MPG.
Our gas guzzler SUV does better than that \"in town\".

All of these efficiency increases have resulted in a net reduction
of petroleum product consumption from the trend line in existence
at that time.

Each home that installs solar is making a 20-30 year commitment
to AVOID petroleum for heating. Each EV is making a 3-15 year
commitment.

Car manufacturers (and gummits) have decided that gas is
a losing bet. GM announced all electric by 2035. It\'s
doubtful Tesla will ever make a petroleum-powered vehicle.
Chrysler just retired the Charger and Challenger (gas
guzzlers) to boost it\'s fleet MPG rating.

Gummits can tax behaviors they want to discourage (petroleum
products) and incentivize behaviors they want to encourage
(EVs, solar, etc.).

We waited in LONG lines in the 70\'s \"oil embargo\". \"By the balls\".
When was the last time you had more than two cars ahead of you at
the gas station?

To reiterate: \'have Europe by the balls\'. Germany decided shutting down that
last nuke wasn\'t a good idea and are bringing coal fired plants back on line.
Suck it up, Greens.

That\'s an unfortunate coincidence. But, is just a temporary
condition. There have already been halting international efforts
to recognize and address these issues. So, it\'s moved beyond
the \"fad\" stage. Which country wants to risk keeping its
automobile industry glued to petroleum only to discover that
large portions of its market may prevent or discourage their use?

Notice how automakers bent their production to California\'s
needs despite the rest of the country NOT making those
demands. Imagine a larger market (country/continent scale)
making demands...

And, when \"enough\" of the major economies have taken the plunge,
its only a matter of time before there is an international
agreement that penalizes petroleum consuming and producing
countries/industries. Again, do you want to be the last one
to step out of the past and risk the damage to your economy
by your intransigence?

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 4:13:45 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:

On 8/20/2022 1:03 PM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 2:13:29 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
On 8/20/2022 9:47 AM, rbowman wrote:
On 08/20/2022 12:42 AM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/19/2022 11:26 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 08/19/2022 08:06 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/19/2022 6:46 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 08/19/2022 11:04 AM, Don Y wrote:
Gotta wonder when China decides his credit isn\'t any good and opts
for something more tangible -- like RUSSIAN REAL ESTATE - to pay his
dues.

You mean like China is acquiring US real estate?

No, they\'re *paying* for it. I suspect Russia will find
itself having to gift bits of real estate to their uber-lords.

Doubtful. I don\'t think you appreciate that the times they are a\'changin\'

If we buy stuffed animals (etc) from china and china decides to
use those monies to buy real estate here, so be it. They could
equally opt to buy something else from somewhere else.

But, if China is the sole (significant) supporter of Russia,
then everything Russia needs comes from (or through) China.
China expects to be compensated just like any other sale.

Russia is a tiny economy. What are they going to have to offer
to China, in the long run?


You really need to pay attention:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/20/energy/china-russia-oil-imports-record/index.html

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-29/russian-gas-pivot-toward-china-will-ease-europe-s-energy-crunch

That \'tiny economy\' seems to have Europe by the balls at the moment.
Oil is an obsolescent product. There have been similar situations
(with other products) throughout recent history. They are transitory.

Not really. Oil is vitally essential. Oil is great as long as you don\'t burn it. Here\'s a bunch of products made using oil:
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/11/f68/Products%20Made%20From%20Oil%20and%20Natural%20Gas%20Infographic.pdf
~45% of oil production goes into making gasoline. I\'m going to take
away 45% of your market -- how happy will you be?

~30% goes to distillates like diesel and heating oil. How happy would you
be to lose that market as well?

Another ~8% goes to jet fuel -- likely not to be replaced anytime soon.

About 15% goes to the \"other products\" that you\'ve mentioned.

What happens to market prices when there is 7 times the market\'s needs
available in the supply?
They\'re really not emphasizing some really big stuff like synthetic textiles and paints and coatings. Those are huge markets and the properties of those products are not easily replaced. Manufacturing polyester responsibly is far less damaging to the environment than growing cotton. Polyester doesn\'t require draining lakes and rivers and laying down the fertilizer and pesticide contamination like cotton does. You\'re going to be hard pressed to find alternatives to petroleum lubricants. There\'re plant based products but you go large scale on those and you end up with a disaster.

It\'s not the \"other\" market is so small, it\'s that the fuel market is outta sight HUGE. When they scale back the extraction to meet the new demand, we\'ll have enough oil for the next 300 years.