Comments by "Luredreier" (@Luredreier) on "What's Going on With Shipping?" channel.

@sq1rlsqu4d It's like with vulcanoes. You might not know exactly when it'll erupt, but if you can see earthquakes, land deformations and changes in the gas composition in the gasses escaping it's probably a good idea to start evacuating people... Likewise, predicting the exact weather may be challenging in certain areas depending on local conditions (I happen to live somewhere where weather models are usually extremely accurate and hour by hour forecasts are usually on point, only occasionally being slightly delayed, but areas further north in Norway is far more unpredictable due to the impact of the Arctic climate, and mountains can make accurate forecasting extremely difficult) But knowing that a ship will eventually encounter rogue waves is easy to predict. And rogue waves has been known about since the nineties. Likewise, the physics involved in dealing with gases under pressure has been known doe quite a while too, to put it mildly. This could have been predicted and prevented through different designs and routines, even if the exact timing of these events is completely unpredictable.
7
Do you watch Perun and Willy OEM? They're both excellent Australian YouTubers. I also really like the Austrian YouTuber Kraut.
4
No boots on the ground?
4
@LackofFaithify It doesn't matter what Russia sees or not. This is a matter of international law. Right now NATO is fighting a proxy war with Russia, but Russia can't legally start a war with a NATO country without triggering article 5 of the NATO treaty, because Russia attacking a NATO country would leave Russia as the aggressor, and NATO isn't at war with Russias allies as we're not technically at war with Russia, just helping a nation that Russia is fighting, and that country is defending against Russia. However if the US where to blockade Russia that would be a deceleration of war against Russia, leaving the US as the aggressor. That means that article 5 in the NATO treaty is invalid as it's intended for mutual defense not attack. It would also trigger the defense clauses of Russias defensive treaties. Landing the US not just at war with Russia, but anyone who have ever signed a defensive treaty with Russia. And technically Russia would be justified to nuke the US without anyone intervening, as again, the US would be the aggressor. Or mine US harbours with sea mines. So while the US might win a nuclear war with Russia (assuming that US nukes are still operational and not going to fail due to lack of proper maintenance) but French and UK nuked wouldn't necessarily be involved in any response to Russia. India, China etc would all just sit back and watch without acting and so one, all because Russia would be defending against American aggression. Sanctions however are legal and peaceful. No one can force a NATO country to conduct business with Russia or any of their allies. Essentially what matters here is jurisdiction and sovreinity. The US and US allies can legally decide what happens on their territory and with their companies, citizens etc. But the moment they start interacting with others directly rather then set restrictions on what your own can do, you start running up against international laws. Because those ships don't belong to the US or NATO etc. Don't carry a NATO cargo. Are not moving between NATO ports, are not operating in NATO waters except in cases where international treaties says that they have a right to do so unmolested, are not insured by NATO firms etc... We can only legally interfere where NATO nationals, companies, territory or assets are involved...
3
Honestly, I feel like a strike just about now, demanding a regulatory body for the railways that's actually doing its job and that has some teeth (and perhaps can increase the safety on the rails) might have some real impact... Nationalization of the actual tracks probably wouldn't hurt either, but I doubt that'll happen in the US right now...
3
2:37 The shells did essentially nothing, it was the torpedoes alone that did the trick in Norway.
2
@louisgiokas2206 The US might have a smaller share of its economy tied up in world trade then other economies, the trade of most continents happens within said continents. But that doesn't mean that all the resources, knowledge, skilled workforce or everything else that the US needs is available within the US. The US needs less world trade then the rest of us because it's a bigger country. But a majority of the worlds population is outside the US, the majority of inventions are made outside the US. The majority of the worlds surface is outside the US and therefore also the worlds resources. The majority of the worlds population is out there meaning that the majority of the worlds workforce is out there and so one and so forth. Even US companies producing US products do so using components or resources or patents made abroad. The US depends heavily on international trade. Even when you have all the components of the production yourself it's often made with factory equipment etc made abroad, that needs to be replaced or maintained by companies made available to you through international trade. The US economy quite literally would collapse if you tried to end world trade today. And even if you actively pursued a policy of autarky, making replacement products whenever possible like Germany did prior to WW2 you still would not be able to have anywhere close to the economy that you have today. Furthermore, a lot of your economy exists because of foreigners investing in your economy, something that would make no sense if you're not linked to the international trade network. They would pull their investments. And a decimation of the US economy would be too positive a situation to hope for. No, the US is supporting international trade because the US depends on it.
2
 @beepboop204 Who are they blockading? Closing your own countries borders is legal. It's interfering with traffic on the sea that's considered an actual blockade.
2
@louisgiokas2206 You're under the mistaken assumption that the US can manage without the rest of the world. But the US is not capable of conquering and occupying the rest of the world. And therefore depends on support from other nations in order to get access to the worlds resources, technology, production, security etc (yes, without the rest of the world the US would eventually be conquered, both due to lack of military as support from the rest of the world, but also because quite frankly, the US is unable to build everything the country needs to defend itself without help from the rest of us) A big part of why the invasion of Ukraine was such a big deal was that Russia broke treaties they signed themselves. Losing what little trust they still had in Europe. They can't be trusted, unlike the Soviet Union. Russia has always been imperialistic. But they at least held their word in the past. No empire can survive without support from their subject nations. In Americas case we're enabling your military and economy and world reach because the global stability and rule of law is worth it. Without our support you lose out on the ideas and technological progress of 95% of the worlds population, not to mention their labour etc. Without our support you'll lose access to the resources of over 98% of the worlds surface. You lose access to 74,78% of the worlds economy. More really, because a lot of US companies only exists because of investments made by foreigners into the US economy. The US needs the rest of the world far more then the rest of the world needs the US, even if a sudden loss of the US from global affair would be disruptive we'd eventually recover. The US wouldn't. It would be devastating for the US. The US is just a small part of the world, despite its size. And without the rest of the world the US would become essentially Russia. A relatively large nation but backwards, with a poor economy. And in order to get access to the rest of the world the country needs international laws... Any international law broken by the US carries consequences down the road. Often severe ones.
2
I doubt it, at least not before the EU elections... The EU is using a proportional electoral system, meaning that political parties need coalition partners in order to get any real power. And the green politicans are serious about cutting emissions... Reduced trade might be worth it them in order to reduce emissions.
2
16:11 Americans have issues with unions. (Often due to bs propaganda from big companies and right wing political organizations) Here in Europe they're usually the standard with unionization rates still approaching 50% in some countries...
1
@louisgiokas2206 You assume that military might is everything. The reality is that the US is unable to conquer and occupy the whole world. Yet the US depends on resources, both in the form of raw materials, skilled labour, intellectual property, education, finished products and support from allies to ensure American security and way of life. Meaning that if the US loses its reputation the country will lose its superpower status fast, its economy will collapse, its security will fail, its military and technology will fall behind. American weapons will no longer sell abroad, losing that subsidy to their development. The US dollar will lose its international demand. The US will be excluded from international trade with US factories going without raw materials, technology, machinery and so one... Essentially, the US would lose its ability to get anything from any other nations if they can't be trusted to follow the treaties they sign themselves. Part of the reason why Ukraine us such a big deal is that Russia showcased that they can no longer be trusted, like the Soviet Union could be. Russia has always been imperialistic, but in the past they usually held their word. Todays Russia under Putin doesn't. If the US behaves the same then the US network of international treaties and alliances will fall apart. That's the enforcement of international law. No empire has ever survived without the support of those they rule over. The current world order designed to benefit the US is acceptable to most of the worlds nations, mainly because they rule themselves yet still have a international legal framework, if the US doesn't respect that the country will be replaced.
1
@beepboop204 Well, according to that lidt there's 3 current blocades in the world. In the case of Yemen it's a blocke against a non state actor, meaning that there's no one to declare war against. But yes, the Saudis are technically at war with the Houthis. Palestine doesn't have recognition from most of the worlds countries. But even so, they don't have their own harbour, meaning that all trade with them happens by land, and closing a land border is not a act of war. As for Russia and Ukraine. They're already at war with each other. It's a big difference between them blockading each other and a third party that's not a co-belligerent to start blockading one of the two. As far as international laws and maritime laws are concerned the only real one on that list is the one between Russia and Ukraine. And it was a big part of why Turkey negotiated the grain deal, because it was hurting other nations.
1
@louisgiokas2206 North Korea +++ That said, the US is increasingly aiming for some degree of autarky. Regarding low energy prices etc, true, but it's also based on the fact that investments in the US can actually provide returns worth something. If the dollar loses value investment in the US with dividends in US dollars becomes less attractive. That happens both if trade with the US goes down and if the worlds subsidies of the US economy and the US dollars goes down. The rest of the world, especially oil producing nations and Europe are subsidizing the US dollar and have been since it went of the gold standard. As for those last paragraphs, which ones are you referring to?
1
@beepboop204 The Houthis and Hamas are not considered state actors by pretty much anyone in the world. Leaving it in a bit of a gray zone when it comes to international law... Also, we're talking land borders in the case of Gaza, and those are legal for states to close. And in the case of Yemen, they're supporting the officially recognized government, so... Yeah... Russia and Ukraine are already at war with each other. So a act of war like blockading the other isn't any more severe legally speaking then all the other acts of war between them... And international law is far more concerned about Russian war crimes and human rights violations then their rather failed attempt at blockading Ukraine... International Law can be ruthless. Lots of weapons of war are legal despite all of the suffering they're causing. In some situations it's legal to kill civilians. And big nations are legally throwing their weight around all the time. But the few international laws nations actually have agreed on are important. And are the foundation of any working relationship at all between nations. Without them you can't even Cary out diplomacy as they're the laws that ensures the safety of diplomats etc... They're the foundation of trust between nations.
1
@louisgiokas2206 Not anti-american, I live in one of those allied countries. I'm simply pointing out that the US can't survive as a major nation in the world if it turns towards isolationism. And yes, of course Russian and Chinese actions breaking international law is a big part of why people are working with the US. But if the US brakes international laws they're suddenly no better then Russia or China. So why ally with the US against either of them?
1
@louisgiokas2206 Part of why the USSR fell was because the US allied with oil nations in the middle east. They started selling their products for dollars, and the US helped investing in them allowing them to increase production and lower the value of Soviet gas and oil exports, sabotaging the Soviet economy. Europe also helped making the dollar the standard for international trade with both other European nations and the rest of the world. Like you mentioned, the US and Europe combined makes up a majority of the worlds economy, so when both insists on using the dollar for international trade others followed suite. The dollar won't just die overnight. But it is being subsidized by friendly nations. Every time the US increases their debt or print money it's lowering the value of the money that people are getting for the things they're selling for their products in international trade. You're essentially taxing any nation with dollars in international reserves and every international sale by printing money and other policies lowering the value of the dollar. It sort of works because the dollar isn't just carried by the US economy but the world economy. But how much people are willing to put up with you abusing it depends a lot on how much we're willing to put up with the US in general. And that is in part influenced by the US following international laws. If you don't then why should we trust you to not just nationalize companies we own on US soil? Or cancel debts owed to us? Or any number of other things that hurts the economy?
1
15:01 It's not just about having a Palestinian/Arab population and being reluctant to choosing a side, Israel is clearly in the wrong, and indirectly caused the attack on Israel themselves with their conduct. The middle east is in our backyard and we see much more of what's actually going on, and we have less religious fanatics mixing their religion with politics and diplomacy then the US does... We're mainly worried about choosing sides because we don't want to upset the US (especially with the warnin Ukraine as a backdrop) then we're worried about upsetting our Muslim minorities, that we're actually sharing views with for once.
1
26:34 From what I understand American shipyards are apparently far more expensive then shipyards in other countries. 5x more expensive when building a container ship was one estimate I heard.
1
14:21 The US military, the Biden administration and congress might want to Blockade Russia, but they can't. Doing so is a act of war, and would justify launching nukes against the US while Europe and others would be legally able to stand back and watch as the US would be the aggressor, meaning that the country can't activate article 5 in the NATO treaty. Hence why they're not doing so. Sanctions like not insuring oil above a certain value is a way around it. But if that doesn't work they have to find other ways. Boarding ships transporting Russian cargo and stopping them is not a option.
1