Thread

U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve Falls to Lowest Level Since 1982

182 points · 234 comments · thelastgallon

brightball · 1790651317 · focus · HN ↗
Chart of strategic reserve levels since 1982, for context
<a href="https://en.macromicro.me/charts/41674/us-strategic-petroleum-reserve" rel="nofollow">https://en.macromicro.me/charts/41674/us-strategic-petroleum...
1. pstuart · 1790653268 · focus · HN ↗
  It looks like it started to plummet in April 2022, which was on Biden's watch (disclaimer: I voted for him). It apparently was in response to supply chain shocks spiking oil prices due to the start of the war in Ukraine.
  Having the AI summarize the pros and cons of that action has valid points on both sides. But in his defense, that particular war was not of our doing, unlike the current war with Iran which was initiated impulsively.
  1. partiallypro · 1790654164 · focus · HN ↗
    > that particular war was not of our doing
    Well... arguably it is partially our doing. Not for the reason's Tucker Carlson & Russia say, but that Obama and later Biden totally sat on their laurels after the Crimean invasion, totally paralyzed by fear of escalation and political fallout.
    mahboi · 1790666321 · focus · HN ↗
    We were trying to get Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. But this started well before Biden's or even Obama's term.
    croon · 1790677486 · focus · HN ↗
    Where they attacked because they wanted in on NATO, or the reverse?
    "I need to attack Ukraine because you're trying to get it into NATO, at which point attacking it is impossible/much harder." ~Putin, probably
    NATO can be criticized for a lot, Afghanistan for example, but despite hearing the argument that Russia attacking Ukraine is NATOs fault, it's never been coherent.
    mahboi · 1790694369 · focus · HN ↗
    They weren't attacked before trying to join NATO, if that's what you mean. It goes back to 2003 at least. In 2008, Germany blocked both countries' NATO bids because they considered it aggressive against Russia.
    It's not just that Putin knew it'd be harder to attack NATO, but it was a clear signal of non-neutrality where they were previously neutral. Even if Germany would've repeatedly blocked their entry to NATO, both countries were aligning with it.
    croon · 1790706684 · focus · HN ↗
    I still don't follow. Is the assertion that the non-"neutrality" of NATO membership/alignment would mean a direct threat to Russia somehow? Because the only coherent read I can make is that the only honest objection would be that Russia would lose their ability to attack Ukraine, as well as Ukraine probably growing better resistance to vassal influence, as seen in Georgia.
    It's all circular reasoning trying to claim otherwise. "Neutrality" would be letting Ukraine fend for it self while Russia aggressively attacks their elections and implants stooges, which I frankly find absurd. Do I believe the US does something similar less crudely? Yes. Do I believe the EU or any other NATO member does? Hardly.
    mahboi · 1790722994 · focus · HN ↗
    Aside from the defense agreement, NATO has implications for weapons, foreign bases, intelligence, and cooperation in wars. And all of them are exclusive, like Turkey got kicked out of the F-35 program for purchasing S-400s. Putting that in two countries bordering Russia would be leverage. USA would likewise not respond nicely to Mexico joining CSTO (well also if CSTO weren't a joke).
    mahboi · 1790752869 · focus · HN ↗
    Oh forgot to mention, the Ukrainian neutrality before meant being part of neither system. So domestic weapons and old Soviet stockpiles.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.