5 ms·

I agree. Even if Russia is our worst enemy, depleting their resources first is quite a logical step. Would you want Russia to be the last country that still has

by jkIHGs 4y ago

I agree. Even if Russia is our worst enemy, depleting their resources first is quite a logical step. Would you want Russia to be the last country that still has oil reserves for its military? Replacing Russia with Qatar or Saudi Arabia (Jemen war?) is hypocritical. Replacing Russia with the U.S. gives the U.S. too much power over the EU. It can be used as a bargaining chip in unrelated negotiations like privacy rights etc.

hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
> Even if Russia is our worst enemy, depleting their resources first is quite a logical step. Would you want Russia to be the last country that still has oil reserves for its military? The fallacy in this reasoning is that with the money from the sales of gas Russia can - and is continuing to - arm themselves and conquer more land and kill more people. The Qatar is not engaged in killing thousands of people right now - if they were, we would not be buying oil from them, either, for the same reasons we are reducing our dependence on Russian gas.
- jkIHGs 4y ago
  You did not address the reasoning, which is about the fact that the last country on earth with oil reserves will have a strategic advantage. Russia can always trade with China to have enough money for weapons. Anyway, even with all the Europe trade in the past decades they can barely advance 50 km in Ukraine.
  - hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
    > You did not address the reasoning, which is about the fact that the last country on earth with oil reserves will have a strategic advantage. I agree this is a problem, and hopefully its scale will be much lower in a few decades as we are moving away from fossil fuels. But even if we were consuming them rapidly as we are doing now, we are talking ca. 50 years for oil and natural gas. Whereas the danger from Russia is right now.
- fritigern 4y ago
  We could not trade with anybody if we stopped trading for ethical reasons. By the same logic we should also stop trading with USA because of the Iraq War (and many others).
fritigern 4y ago
> Replacing Russia with the U.S. gives the U.S. too much power over the EU. It can be used as a bargaining chip in unrelated negotiations like privacy rights etc. I agree with this.
- toss1 4y ago
  >>U.S. too much power over the EU Bullshirt Russia has already explicitly used energy blackmail on EU nations, and is specifically pushing Nordstream, etc. pipelines to create such dependency. Most recently Russia broke it's contracts and demanded payment in Rubles in order to support it's currency after launching a genocidal attack on it's neighbor. US policy has been explicitly AGAINST even allowing exports for decades, and only relaxed recently in order to support our EU friends. Russia is an entirely unreliable supplier, the US is reliable. Take your new troll account and go back to Leningrad, Boris.
  - hal1234 4y ago
    I'm against this war, but I think the history is a little different. Russia has always been a reliable supplier except for the recent demand to pay in Rubles. Nordstream was built because Ukraine was an unreliable transit nation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_ga... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jan/03/russia-ukraine-gas-supplies-gazprom https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jan/03/russia-ukraine...
    - mensetmanusman 4y ago
      Maybe it’s hard to be reliable when Russia keeps attacking you.
    - toss1 4y ago
      If "Ukraine was an unreliable transit nation" it was only because Russia kept shutting off their supply to attempt to undermine their government and extract consessions. In Putin's latest speech, he laid bare the goals - to re-enact Peter The Great and restore Russian lands', which basically include anything Russia wants, not merely Ukraine, but Poland, Lithuania, Sweden (which PTG took with the same excuse of it 'being Russian'. Putin is literally working to rebuild a 19th century empire with 19th century war rules, genocide included. If you are supporting this in any way, again, you are at best a Useful Idiot (in the Vladimir Lenin sense) or at worst a paid bot/troll. Stop it
AshamedCaptain 4y ago
> It can be used as a bargaining chip in unrelated negotiations like privacy rights etc. There are many things one could have said here (e.g. PDOs -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_designation_of_origin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_designation_of_origi... , regulations on hazardous materials, etc. ) , but privacy rights is not exactly one of them. The EU can and has been squashing those on its own just fine.
FooBarWidget 4y ago
Could? They're working on re- recognizing Privacy Shield as GDPR compliant. The US most definitely has a huge bargaining chip.
- fritigern 4y ago
  I donated to NOYB when I heard this.

by jkIHGs 4y ago

hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago

> Even if Russia is our worst enemy, depleting their resources first is quite a logical step. Would you want Russia to be the last country that still has oil reserves for its military? The fallacy in this reasoning is that with the money from the sales of gas Russia can - and is continuing to - arm themselves and conquer more land and kill more people. The Qatar is not engaged in killing thousands of people right now - if they were, we would not be buying oil from them, either, for the same reasons we are reducing our dependence on Russian gas.

jkIHGs 4y ago
You did not address the reasoning, which is about the fact that the last country on earth with oil reserves will have a strategic advantage. Russia can always trade with China to have enough money for weapons. Anyway, even with all the Europe trade in the past decades they can barely advance 50 km in Ukraine.
- hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
  > You did not address the reasoning, which is about the fact that the last country on earth with oil reserves will have a strategic advantage. I agree this is a problem, and hopefully its scale will be much lower in a few decades as we are moving away from fossil fuels. But even if we were consuming them rapidly as we are doing now, we are talking ca. 50 years for oil and natural gas. Whereas the danger from Russia is right now.
fritigern 4y ago
We could not trade with anybody if we stopped trading for ethical reasons. By the same logic we should also stop trading with USA because of the Iraq War (and many others).

fritigern 4y ago

> Replacing Russia with the U.S. gives the U.S. too much power over the EU. It can be used as a bargaining chip in unrelated negotiations like privacy rights etc. I agree with this.

toss1 4y ago
>>U.S. too much power over the EU Bullshirt Russia has already explicitly used energy blackmail on EU nations, and is specifically pushing Nordstream, etc. pipelines to create such dependency. Most recently Russia broke it's contracts and demanded payment in Rubles in order to support it's currency after launching a genocidal attack on it's neighbor. US policy has been explicitly AGAINST even allowing exports for decades, and only relaxed recently in order to support our EU friends. Russia is an entirely unreliable supplier, the US is reliable. Take your new troll account and go back to Leningrad, Boris.
- hal1234 4y ago
  I'm against this war, but I think the history is a little different. Russia has always been a reliable supplier except for the recent demand to pay in Rubles. Nordstream was built because Ukraine was an unreliable transit nation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_ga... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jan/03/russia-ukraine-gas-supplies-gazprom https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jan/03/russia-ukraine...
  - mensetmanusman 4y ago
    Maybe it’s hard to be reliable when Russia keeps attacking you.
  - toss1 4y ago
    If "Ukraine was an unreliable transit nation" it was only because Russia kept shutting off their supply to attempt to undermine their government and extract consessions. In Putin's latest speech, he laid bare the goals - to re-enact Peter The Great and restore Russian lands', which basically include anything Russia wants, not merely Ukraine, but Poland, Lithuania, Sweden (which PTG took with the same excuse of it 'being Russian'. Putin is literally working to rebuild a 19th century empire with 19th century war rules, genocide included. If you are supporting this in any way, again, you are at best a Useful Idiot (in the Vladimir Lenin sense) or at worst a paid bot/troll. Stop it

AshamedCaptain 4y ago

> It can be used as a bargaining chip in unrelated negotiations like privacy rights etc. There are many things one could have said here (e.g. PDOs -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_designation_of_origin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_designation_of_origi... , regulations on hazardous materials, etc. ) , but privacy rights is not exactly one of them. The EU can and has been squashing those on its own just fine.

FooBarWidget 4y ago

Could? They're working on re- recognizing Privacy Shield as GDPR compliant. The US most definitely has a huge bargaining chip.

fritigern 4y ago
I donated to NOYB when I heard this.