69
Comments (23)
sorted by:
38
dagthegnome 38 points ago +38 / -0

This. This is how you troll.

34
Sneak_King 34 points ago +34 / -0

This is the kind of international shitposting the internet was meant for.

26
ApparentlyImAHeretic 26 points ago +26 / -0

orc profile pic

Verifiably based

26
Grumman 26 points ago +26 / -0

My back of a napkin math says he's using 100-200 megajoules of natural gas per day out of spite.

Google says fossil fuels emit about 0.07 kg of CO2 per megajoule.

Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry's private jet emitted 325,000 kilograms of CO2 in around 500 days, or 650 kilograms per day. Meaning that this guy deliberately wasting fuel out of spite is approximately 50-90 times better for the environment than John Kerry being a climate activist.

19
TomSeeSaw 19 points ago +19 / -0

The war has been won

14
AntonioOfVenice 14 points ago +15 / -1

Twitch took it down because to Europeans, this is like pornography.

8
NeoDragoon 8 points ago +8 / -0

Gotta keep that traffic going to the Twtich THOTs...

13
fauxgnaws 13 points ago +13 / -0

Had to change URL to http://www.twitch.tv/russiangas1 to load on desktop browser.

2
Lurker404 [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

Weird, runs fine for me in Brave on desktop. I get a mobile-looking UI without all the usual Twitch clutter.

1
fauxgnaws 1 point ago +1 / -0

Also using Brave, still doesn't load. Shields up, uBlock Origin, NoScript.

Maybe NoScript replaced one of their tracking scripts with a not entirely compatible one.

10
lapalapa 10 points ago +10 / -0

What a cheeky breeki.

7
MagnumRabbits 7 points ago +7 / -0

Beware beware

The last time the Germans got jealous of the Russian oil fields, they made it to the Volga.

I love the shit post, but it underscores something much darker. Europe and the EU aren't going to tolerate energy shortages forever. At some point, something will give, and if I was a oil-rich country, I'd get worried soon.

Not that Europe's military power is all that, pretty much every EU nation + UK has terrible age demographics. Besides France, which also happens to have the most independent energy sector as well, so it'll be an uphill battle to get them to commit to anything.

8
ArtemisFoul 8 points ago +8 / -0

Most EU countries simply have no military to speak of that could possibly try to conquer anything. EU conquers with money, but that's quickly running out as the remnants of industry that survived long-term green policies and more recently Coof mania are rapidly burning through the last of their reserves.

I mean, Jesus fucking Christ, Volkswagen is threatening to move out of Germany now due to unsustainable energy prices.

2
MagnumRabbits 2 points ago +2 / -0

I agree that the EU's combined military force pales in comparison to ages past, but I just want to say that necessity creates some really interesting outcomes.

Europe isn't without options, especially with the US behind it (and you better believe that the US is going to support the EU over Russia).

I doubt it'll ever come to conventional warfare, at least in the near future. However the EU isn't going to want to ration energy forever. At some point either the EU or certain member countries will want to strike out and secure cheaper sources. My first thought is a renewed European interest in Middle East markets, or North Africa.

3
ArtemisFoul 3 points ago +3 / -0

I agree that necessity creates some interesting outcomes, and that EU citizens won't want to ration energy forever. But there's zero chance EU states are building a modern military anytime within the next at least 10 years. For example, there is pretty much no way to make ammunition in the EU at a massive scale, due to legal issues and ecological regulations, and even if we hanged every watermelon shithead tomorrow, it's been like that for decades, and modern industry is so incredibly complicated that it would take decades to get up to speed. The knowhow is gone, too. And we're not hanging all the pinkos tomorrow anyway.

If EU citizens do rise, we won't be conquering foreign countries, we'll be retaking our own lands, armed with WW2-era weapons and using old ammo stocks. That could work in a civil war, but it would never work in an invasion.

2
MagnumRabbits 2 points ago +2 / -0

All I would add is don't underestimate American involvement. There's no way that Europe will take on the brunt of the responsibility of fighting. It's much more likely American troops would be used.

Like Russia, Western Europe's demographics are shit (excluding France). Ten years from now most western European countries wouldn't be able to support their own public spending, much less field an effective army.

Just a quick add, I don't think a direct fight with Russia is in the cards. I'm thinking more of "war on terrorism" type bill of goods where the Americans try to secure sources in northern Africa or ME

2
ArtemisFoul 2 points ago +2 / -0

The American MIC will be more than happy to supply arms, but they will stop just short of giving any European country actual fighting capability.

Eastern Europe's demographics are shit too, btw.

And yes, a direct fight with Russia is unlikely, that's not how globohomo rolls. I expect even more billions of dollars spent on color revolution attempts.

2
MagnumRabbits 2 points ago +2 / -0

Ehhh, yes and no. American military assets are definitely on the table. Stuff like drones, intelligence gathering, special forces, etc. are all options.

Traditional invasions might go by the wayside, but given enough time the motivations for it will only increase if there's no other solution.

4
Assassin47 4 points ago +4 / -0

Were Russia not a nuclear power, I'd agree and wonder if this whole operation wasn't a gambit to destroy Russia's military in the Ukraine, leaving them vulnerable to attacks from other fronts. Then Western powers invade to impose their long-desired partitioning plans - where to the victors go the spoils.

But Russia is a nuclear power and you can't engage in direct wars of conquest or "regime change" against them. Unless there are highly placed traitors who are planning to secure the launch sites... maybe Putin himself is part of the West's plans, though I guess his ego would prevent that.

3
MagnumRabbits 3 points ago +3 / -0

There's some weight in burdening Russia by pinning them to Ukraine and letting them waste resources there while "other fronts" get pushed. It worked in Afghanistan, and as conventional wisdom goes, "it can happen again"

Ultimately, Russia's worst issue is demographics. Years of Soviet purges and falling birthrates have hollowed out younger generations. Poor education initiatives since the fall of the USSR has effectively made Putin's leadership the last best hope for the next few decades, as the generations under him lack the proper education and ability (Read: KGB educated background).

However, not all is doom and gloom. Russia has plentiful natural resources, and as the Asian world gets more electrified, Russia can leverage it's position in Asia and elsewhere as a discount source for energy products. Russia also was never heavily tied into the global system, save for grain and energy, so western attempts to isolate the Russians have a bit of a buffer.

Ultimately, I doubt that the west would ever be successful at a full scale Russian "regime change" but the possibility of more breakaway states from Russia's frontiers is a distinct possibility should the Russian demographic picture get worse.

I agree that direct conflict against Russia is a fever dream at best, but I won't discount EU desperation after a couple of years of going cold in the winter and hot in the summer. A lot of western governments derive their authority through being able to keep the lights on. Threaten that basis and the West is certain to get...

..."Inventive"

6
Footsoldier 6 points ago +6 / -0

At my time of viewing he's already made a 16 euro profit!

3
MaverickBoobies 3 points ago +4 / -1

It will cheaper for him in Venezuela!

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0