There's no call for being insulting. Force majeure supply interruptions (particularly those served by durable infrastructure, like pipelines) are different from

There's no call for being insulting. Force majeure supply interruptions (particularly those served by durable infrastructure, like pipelines) are different from rapid but planned shifts. The cutoff of Russian gas to the European market is not very comparable. And really, there is no negotiation or bargaining with the catastrophic climate outcome - it is has no regard to how difficult it will be to move off of fossil fuels. If you want to connect this to European situation, you can see that one nation depends on fossil fuels to maintain geopolitical relevance, and you may look at political parties allied and supported by that nation and the energy policies they support. Since it's extistential for Russia (and US/Saudi petrochemical concerns) to keep people on fossil fuels, they undermine moves off it it. They flood global anti-environment movement with money and delay and obstruct fixing this, and make people believe it is less possible that it is. They are completely ambivalent to what will probably be the death of a majority of the world's population under worst case scenarios before the ended of this century (https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_SummaryForP...), which is currently the most likely outcome. Anyway, we have change our ways, or doom our children. That's the choice ahead.