3 ms·

Why is protecting the economy more important than stopping the funding of the Russian army and their military invasion?

by belorn 5y ago

zirror 5y ago
Even if we stop paying for gas and oil right now, that won't stop the Russian invasion. They have massive currency reserves, are relatively self sufficient etc. Whereas if we do not receive gas anymore, it would wreck our own economies, which would lead to massive unemployment, social unrest and maybe going to the political extremes in the long run. It would basically be European suicide. We need to be strong to help Ukraine. That being said, the day we can stop paying for Russian gas is the day we will truly be free. Germany's liberatarian finance minster called renewables "freedom energy" and that could not be truer IMO.
ivan_gammel 5y ago
There's a false assumption that stopping oil and gas imports will somehow stop the invasion and funding of Russian army. It will not, so it's better to focus on more practical and sustainable steps.
- belorn 5y ago
  During the war with IS there were constantly talk about how funding terrorism goes directly into funding the wars, be that people who directly gave them money or people who bought their drugs. I also often see the police say things like "don't buy things from criminals, it directly fund more criminal activities". We have international agreements against blood diamonds and conflict resource, all focusing on eliminating the finance of those conducing wars. It seems that in every possible way where people are funding war and conflict, the message has been in the past 20-50 years that this is actually a problem that need to addressed. While cutting the funding doesn't imminently stop conflicts, or prevent terrorists from making home made bombs, giving them money does prolong conflicts and gives the warring faction more options to continue doing horrible acts of violence. Cutting the money flow also provide pressure on the targeted population to stop their leaders and forcing them to the peace table.
  - ivan_gammel 5y ago
    This is just a theory that does not take into account the circumstances of the Russian invasion. In the long term, it does make sense to stop importing oil and gas from Russia to prevent the future aggression, because it will indeed weaken the regime. In the short term, if EU stops buying oil and gas immediately, Russia still has: 1) possibility to export to China and other non-aligned markets (many countries which abstained in UN vote, are the client states which will not support the embargo). 2) enough resources to continue funding military procurement for many months 3) semi-autonomous economy that will survive even total trade embargo with the West, albeit on a lower technology level The effects of oil and gas embargo will be felt by Russian population earliest by the end of summer, effectively being a punishment rather than a deterrent. We should aim to end the war long before that and stop talking about this and other populist but unrealistic ideas like no-fly zone.
    - belorn 5y ago
      I am not convinced. It still mean people will have blood on their hands when they knowingly are providing the funds for a war. It is a very dangerous bet to hope that the Russians won't have enough time to use the money, that peace will arrive before that funds reaches the military operations. People should aim to end the war before this summer, but what if it doesn't happen? That gas, oil and coal are means for missiles and hired mercenaries. How happy should German citizen be if journalists later traces the money from a fossil fuel transaction to weapons used in a war crime where citizens were tortured and killed? In the short term we are seeing employees at European harbors and other places being put to the moral dilemma of either refusing to work or continuing working with Russian transports, knowing that they are working directly with the economic side of the Russian military branch. Many do not want to have to look in the mirror in a few months, knowing what they did, knowing what they knew, feeling like they have blood on their hands. Saving jobs and saving the economy is a poor comfort when on the news they see ordinary citizens laying on the street with a bullet in the head. Every nation hope that wars will end in just a few days, weeks or months. Blitzkrieg. It will be over by the weekend. The Russian thought so when they entered Ukraine and they were wrong. It a nice aim to hope that the war will be long gone before the summer, but realistic there is a high risk that it won't. The assumption when funding war should be that the war isn't going to end.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Why is protecting the economy more important than stopping the funding of the Russian army and their military invasion?

by belorn 5y ago

Why is protecting the economy more important than stopping the funding of the Russian army and their military invasion?

Even if we stop paying for gas and oil right now, that won't stop the Russian invasion. They have massive currency reserves, are relatively self sufficient etc. Whereas if we do not receive gas anymore, it would wreck our own economies, which would lead to massive unemployment, social unrest and maybe going to the political extremes in the long run. It would basically be European suicide. We need to be strong to help Ukraine. That being said, the day we can stop paying for Russian gas is the day we will truly be free. Germany's liberatarian finance minster called renewables "freedom energy" and that could not be truer IMO.

ivan_gammel 5y ago

There's a false assumption that stopping oil and gas imports will somehow stop the invasion and funding of Russian army. It will not, so it's better to focus on more practical and sustainable steps.

belorn 5y ago
During the war with IS there were constantly talk about how funding terrorism goes directly into funding the wars, be that people who directly gave them money or people who bought their drugs. I also often see the police say things like "don't buy things from criminals, it directly fund more criminal activities". We have international agreements against blood diamonds and conflict resource, all focusing on eliminating the finance of those conducing wars. It seems that in every possible way where people are funding war and conflict, the message has been in the past 20-50 years that this is actually a problem that need to addressed. While cutting the funding doesn't imminently stop conflicts, or prevent terrorists from making home made bombs, giving them money does prolong conflicts and gives the warring faction more options to continue doing horrible acts of violence. Cutting the money flow also provide pressure on the targeted population to stop their leaders and forcing them to the peace table.
- ivan_gammel 5y ago
  This is just a theory that does not take into account the circumstances of the Russian invasion. In the long term, it does make sense to stop importing oil and gas from Russia to prevent the future aggression, because it will indeed weaken the regime. In the short term, if EU stops buying oil and gas immediately, Russia still has: 1) possibility to export to China and other non-aligned markets (many countries which abstained in UN vote, are the client states which will not support the embargo). 2) enough resources to continue funding military procurement for many months 3) semi-autonomous economy that will survive even total trade embargo with the West, albeit on a lower technology level The effects of oil and gas embargo will be felt by Russian population earliest by the end of summer, effectively being a punishment rather than a deterrent. We should aim to end the war long before that and stop talking about this and other populist but unrealistic ideas like no-fly zone.
  - belorn 5y ago
    I am not convinced. It still mean people will have blood on their hands when they knowingly are providing the funds for a war. It is a very dangerous bet to hope that the Russians won't have enough time to use the money, that peace will arrive before that funds reaches the military operations. People should aim to end the war before this summer, but what if it doesn't happen? That gas, oil and coal are means for missiles and hired mercenaries. How happy should German citizen be if journalists later traces the money from a fossil fuel transaction to weapons used in a war crime where citizens were tortured and killed? In the short term we are seeing employees at European harbors and other places being put to the moral dilemma of either refusing to work or continuing working with Russian transports, knowing that they are working directly with the economic side of the Russian military branch. Many do not want to have to look in the mirror in a few months, knowing what they did, knowing what they knew, feeling like they have blood on their hands. Saving jobs and saving the economy is a poor comfort when on the news they see ordinary citizens laying on the street with a bullet in the head. Every nation hope that wars will end in just a few days, weeks or months. Blitzkrieg. It will be over by the weekend. The Russian thought so when they entered Ukraine and they were wrong. It a nice aim to hope that the war will be long gone before the summer, but realistic there is a high risk that it won't. The assumption when funding war should be that the war isn't going to end.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]