South Korea Secures Three More Months of Oil from Four Nations
The best thing about this oil is that it will all be shipped to South Korea without having to transit the Strait of Hormuz:
South Korea has secured 273 million barrels of crude oil by the end of this year from four nations in the Middle East, presidential chief of staff Kang Hoon-sik said Wednesday.
Kang, who returned home from his eight-day trip to Oman, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kazakhstan, said the nation also secured 2.1 million tons of naphtha by the end of this year.
“The 273 million barrels of crude oil, based on last year’s consumption levels, are sufficient to sustain the economy for more than three months under normal operating conditions without the need for additional emergency measures,” Kang told reporters.
You can read more at the link.
I want to hate President Lee out of my anti-globalist, anti-communist, anti-intrusive-socialist, anti-Chinese influence core principles…
…but his administration keeps successfully looking out for Korea.
Refusing to pay Iranian tolls and quickly securing oil from other sources (while other governments haven’t even figured out what to do) is effective nationalist government in action.
Saying nice things about President Lee is an unpopular opinion in some circles (I recently had a true “far-right” Korean yell at me in the real world) but I will always base my opinion on observation over ideology.
And while I don’t expect the emotional left to observe actions and outcomes to form an opinion, I do expect that from the rational right, as that ability is what separates them from the animals.
@ChickenHead:
As usual, I find your kind of take deeply frustrating.
1. Of course a president should look after their country. That’s not exceptional leadership; it’s the baseline expectation of the job. Doing what you’re elected to do shouldn’t automatically be framed as proof of greatness.
2. Again, and again.. context matters. The current administration is operating without the same level of institutional obstruction that previous presidents had to navigate. When past leaders faced constant gridlock.. blocked appointments, legislative stonewalling, and repeated political attacks.. their ability to act was constrained. That reality doesn’t just disappear when evaluating outcomes. If anything, it highlights how much easier it is to “look effective” when you’re not being systematically hindered.
The whole “I base my views on observation, not ideology” claim doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Everyone interprets events through some kind of framework: values, assumptions, priorities. That is ideology. Calling your own perspective “just observation” while dismissing others as ideological isn’t objectivity; it’s a way of presenting your own bias as neutral and superior.
Joshua Lee, I understand your frustration.
I understand that right-leaning presidents could have done greater things for Korea if the opposition hadn’t damaged Korea just so the president could never get a win.
I watched Moon make decision after decision that was damaging to Korea but not to the globalist agenda. While “Of course a president should look after their country,” we have watched a president not do that and gotten by without demonstrations or the obligatory post-presidential prosecution and jail time.
Unjust.
But that is not how I am judging this.
I have only one criteria:
Is the action I am witnessing good or bad for Korea.
I believe quickly making deals to secure foreign oil and not giving in to extortion are both good for Korea.
I will not condemn someone for doing what I believe to be the right thing. Women will hate on someone for years over trivial issues. Men will work with their worst enemy to accomplish a goal. I don’t think like a woman.
I share your concern about open talk of using economic crisis to transform society, as that is the first step toward government creating crisis. We should all be paying attention to the nature of these possible “transformations”.
I share your distrust of President Lee and your disgust at anti-Korean/pro-globalist, redistributionists, NK sympathizers, Chinese enablers, etc.
I just don’t share a desire to condemn actions which are good for Korea just because I dislike those who do them.
A depiction of the exchange between the two Setnaffarian bots.
@KoreanPerson:
Xie Xie.
@Chickenhead, I agree that Lee has handled the Iran conflict well, but it is hard to give him credit for it because it was basically a foreign policy layup. It really didn’t matter who the President was they were going to do the same thing that Lee did by looking to source oil from other sources other than through the Strait of Hormuz and not paying an illegal tool to Iran.
“but it is hard to give him credit for it because it was basically a foreign policy layup”
We have all watched Germany shut down their nuclear, shut down their coal, rely on Russian energy, reject Russian energy, buy Russian energy through Turkey while pretending it isn’t, damage their economy with high energy prices…
…so competent energy policy isn’t a given.
Once again, Moon tried to destroy Korea’s energy independence and damage it reactor building industry… so it isn’t a given in Korea either, especially among the lefties who only love green energy that doesn’t work.
I am getting a lot of hate for noticing someone is doing something right in a group of people not known for doing anything right… even if it is obviously the correct thing to do.
A lefty not creating disaster is worth studying closer.
I see no shame in complimenting correct action with equal enthusiasm as I ridicule incorrect action.
Only seeing things from one ideological side and denying reality risks becoming… Them.
And I don’t want to be Them.
@ChickenHead:
Bringing up Germany doesn’t actually prove that “competent energy policy isn’t a given” in Korea. It just shows that energy transitions are complex and sometimes messy. Germany’s situation involved long-term structural decisions (post-Fukushima nuclear phase-out, dependence on Russian gas, EU policy constraints), not a simple case of leaders randomly choosing bad options. Using that as a cautionary tale is fine, but using it to imply “therefore this current decision proves exceptional leadership” is a stretch.
While I’m definitely NOT a fan of Moon, his administration did shift away from nuclear and coal toward renewables, which you can criticize on cost or reliability grounds.. but that’s a larger policy trade-off, not obvious sabotage. We’ll probably need to engage with actual metrics (energy mix stability, import dependence, price volatility), not just assert intent.
Sure, give Lee credit for doing something “right” even when it’s the obvious answer. However, I’m taking it a step further by saying don’t be blinded by his actions – he’s still an evil person wanting to destroy the country for his personal greed (amongst Minjoo’s other list of agendas).