That was the thought I had. It came from Politico, as such I would believe that it was political. Yet the larger premise is on the setting of circumstance. This sounds weirdly spooky, but it is the best I can offer. The story (at https://www.politico.eu/article/vladimir-putin-war-economy-pain-saudi-arabia-sink-global-oil-prices-energy-russia-opec/) starts with ‘Putin’s war economy faces pain if Saudis sink global oil prices’ which is a partial truth, but it goes further then that. We are given “A Saudi move to grab market share will squeeze the Kremlin’s finances, experts argue” which is only a partial truth. The entire part is followed by “Riyadh is increasingly frustrated with other petrostates’ failure to coordinate on cutting supply to raise oil prices to about $100 per barrel — up from the current $70. Oil traders say Saudi Arabia is now set to respond by flexing its muscles and turning the tables on smaller producers, exporting more oil itself to grab market share and profits, even as prices fall.” We are also given “The Financial Times reported last week that Saudi Arabia could abandon its long-held ambitions to limit the crude supply to push prices to around $100 a barrel. Oil market experts have little doubt that Saudi Arabia has the enormous production and export capacity to change tactics and gun for market domination through volume instead.” In this view I need to align a few positions. What is missing is that America (the United Kingdom also) are depending in keeping oil cheap. So that is missing. Hanging it on the Russian needs is a bit dorky. Yes, they both matter, but the US an EU need for cheap oil missing as a pre-made need, is just dorky (I can’t find a better word for this). You see when there is a lack of a commodity prices go up and now this fails? The world requires (at present) that 2.4 million barrels per day pumped more than now and that is not done. I actually speculated this a year ago when I stated that we can pump 4 barrels at $3, or 3 barrels at $4. The amount gained is still the same but at 25% less oil. It is a simple equation (and an incorrect version) but the the premise remains. I went through to the next stage that Saudi Arabia could pump 2 barrels as the price goes up to $6, still the same revenue but now at half the oil delivered. This is how commerce works on commodities. I still doubt the statement that the $100 per barrel cannot be reached, I merely believe that certain stakeholders want the premise to keep their pockets lined. How? I cannot tell, I am not an oil person, I merely use it through various means. So what gives?
When we get to ““The global economy is fairly sluggish and oil demand is not as high as the Saudis would want,” said Ajay Parmar, director of oil markets analytics at commodities intelligence firm ICIS.” I have issues here. You see, this means that the Russia delivers all oil. There is not a lack of demand, some people are playing a high end game to keep their pockets lined. If I had it my way (pretend that I am the new CEO of Aramco, a very fake one) I would stop 5.5 million barrels a day from reaching the US, EU and UK, in the combination 3,2 and .5 it would take less than 90 days for it all to implode. As Tesla is more and more lacking is quality, the other nations will need 2-3 years to overcome their downfall and in that time China is the new superpower with America stumbling over the edge of the abyss. That is clear in my (optionally wrong) point of view. The setting that Politico gives is too partial and slightly too flawed.
Yes Russia has a problem and they are welcome to the problems they get to harvest now. A second problem is “Russia’s fossil fuel profits have also risen by 41 percent in the first half of this year alone, according to Moscow’s finance ministry, despite Western sanctions imposed over the war in Ukraine.” I don’t doubt these numbers, but who paid for that oil? I doubt is was merely China, North Korea and India. Although these countries were involved. I saw last year that India was buying some of the oil, China is a definite and I guess that North Korea had to pay for their weapons and it seems like a logical choice for them to accept oil as payment. So who more?
Politico should have stated “Russia’s fossil fuel profits have also risen by 41 percent (from 1M barrels to 1.41M barrels)” but they didn’t if Russia only sold 50,000 barrels it will not be an issue, but that is not the case, is it?
Now if you doubt my reasoning. That is fine. But we have seen plenty of issues where prices go up the moment that commodities has a higher demand. Yet the article does not give us that does it? And who is Ajay Parmar? This article leaves me with plenty of questions and no answers. So in all this, Is Russia in actual trouble? To some degree, but I see this as an alternative way for Saudi Arabia to give in to the west requiring cheap oil. I personally believe that Politico missed their mark and as such loses credibility as such. The one part that I do see is “A loophole allows middlemen in countries like Turkey, China and India to refine Russian oil in petrol and diesel before selling it elsewhere — exempt from sanctions. According to a report first seen by POLITICO, Western countries spent $2 billion on this rebranded fuel in the first half of 2024” As such that should be the story and the story is that more and more nations are fuelling Russian revenue through refining Russian oil and filling their pockets. As such there is a momentum being built, one that is not addressed and one that is trivialised as such I expect that plenty of newspapers will fuel their revenue by posting this story. The 41% is now shown to be big business, especially when we see Turkey and India and how they are short on cash pretty much all of the time.
So we are seeing a larger stage. In the first on where is Russian oil going to and in the second what countries are fuelling their demands for cheap oil? A nice spreadsheet would have been nice, but that was a part that Politico oversaw (I guess).
Still as we see one part, we also see the part that some want us to see, appointed awareness. A combination of social awareness and the influence of appointing. A formal arrangement to create a designed social awareness. The ability to understand a situation as the offical parties would like others to see them. But as I see it, this will be at the expense of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Is that fair all whilst Russia is handed loophole after loophole, as long as the west gets its oil cheap. How is this not exploitation?
Consider what is being done and at what expense? The question is simple enough.
Enjoy the Sunday you have left to you.
Lawrence van Rijn - Law Lord to be 