5 ms·

The US & Canada are energy independent (or at least equalized imports/exports) and food exporters. The EU is a net importer of both so pretty clear why recent

by treis 4y ago

The US & Canada are energy independent (or at least equalized imports/exports) and food exporters. The EU is a net importer of both so pretty clear why recent events would favor the US/Canada & not the EU.

mytailorisrich 4y ago
It certainly explains why the US pushed so much for sanctions against Russia, and it's less clear why Europe so enthusiastically shot itself in the foot by following suit. Edit: this is not a "minor economic pain" for Europe and might reach extreme consequences later this year. On the other hand, the US have played extremely well, gaining on all fronts (increased influence through enlarged Nato and, increased weapons sales, increases oil/gas profits), while China is left in an awkward position. Only downside seems to have been the push for alternatives to dollar/western-centric financial system.
- coremoff 4y ago
  > so enthusiastically shot itself into foot is rather unfair I think - there are very good reasons why an unpleasant action might be necessary
  - pydry 4y ago
    Germany is set to run out of gas during winter under optimistic scenarios. This is looking less like a bit of unpleasantness and more like economic suicide by the day. LNG is not going to suffice. There isnt even the port capacity to bring it in. Rationing would have to be extreme just to ride out the winter. And then what? Hitting the economic self destruct button so that Ukraine reserves the right to join NATO doesnt look so appealing any more.
    - Retric 4y ago
      Running out in this case just means a spike in prices or the dreaded rationing. Lowering thermostats can dramatically reduce fuel consumption, how to achieve that nationwide is an open question.
      - rohitb91 4y ago
        And if it's a cold winter? And if buildings can't be heated and pipes burst? If businesses shutdown because of freezes?
        Retric 4y ago
        It takes vastly less energy to keep pipes from freezing than it does to keep indoor temperatures at ~70f. If supplies where dropping 80% Germany would be facing real issues, but that's not the scale we are talking about.
  - mytailorisrich 4y ago
    Well, so far this hasn't deterred anything nor apparently slowed Russia down but it has had massively negative consequences for Europe. In general, basic self-interest in geopolitics means to always to something only with a clear upside for yourselves (duh) With the energy prices as they stand, the UK for example is heading for a social and potentially humanitarian disaster this winter. I don't see how "being firm against Putin" or "Ukraine" justify it.
    - lindly 4y ago
      >Well, so far this hasn't deterred anything nor apparently slowed Russia down but it has had massively negative consequences for Europe. This a ridiculous absurd assumption. Russia has massive supply issues for just about everything, including defense related industries. >In general, basic self-interest in geopolitics means to always to something only with a clear upside for yourselves (duh) [Citation needed]. If the downsides for your enemy are massive it makes sense to take a hit your self. In fact Putin did count on the west to continue it's cynical way of doing business like it did after all the previous Russian wars (Chechnya 1/2, Georgia, Syria, Crimea, Donbass). I'm sure, if the EU could have made the threat of doing what it did later, this would have deterred the invasion. It just didn't have any credibility due to past decisions. But now future threats should be take more seriously. This might stabilize the world as a hole. >I don't see how "being firm against Putin" or "Ukraine" justify it. The next winter is going to suck and most people might not have realized that. But speaking of humanitarian disasters, this is our best bet to avoid a way, way bigger humanitarian disaster in the baltics.
    - EB-Barrington 4y ago
      Russians are raping and executing civilians, and Russian authorities have stated on more than one occasion that other countries beyond Ukraine will also be punished. What extra justification is needed?
      - coward-guy 4y ago
        Ombudsman Denisova was sacked for excessive lies about woman rapes. The Commissioner of the President of Ukraine for Children's Rights Daria Gerasimchuk on the Polish TV channel "Belsat" exposed fake Ukrainian propaganda about the alleged violence by the Russian military against Ukrainian children. Proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfUBRGUH-Kc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfUBRGUH-Kc The Prosecutor General's Office of Ukraine has not a single confirmed fact of violence so far.
- khuey 4y ago
  I think the motivation for the EU attempting to deter war on its eastern borders is straightforward.
  - makomk 4y ago
    Extremely straightforward, yes. What I don't think a lot of Americans get is just how utterly, terrifyingly destructive the wars of conquest that preceded the current era of peace were for Europe - especially the two world wars. Large chunks of entire generations killed, wounded and traumatized, whole citities levelled, regions rendered unfit for anything beyond farming. One of the major justifications for the European Union as an institution was to supposedly ensure that nothing like this would happen again. Now we have a brutal war of conquest right next to the EU's eastern border, and sabre-rattling about how some of its member states might be next. It's in the direct self-preservation interest of a lot of countries that Russia fails and fails hard.
    - mytailorisrich 4y ago
      It's not straightforward, it's simplistic, and a way to scare people into accepting a narrative (like turning public opinion into agreeing to join Nato in some countries...) Europe (EU/Nato) is not at risk of attack by Russia. It's not clear why Finland would suddenly be at risk. What is happening is a continuation of the fall of the USSR when Russia lost very big and was hastily written off. Russia has somewhat recovered and is asserting its claims and interests. While we should hold firm when this clashes with our own, saying that Russia should be beaten into submission is not going to work and is only going to perpetuate conflicts. As it stands Russia is going to take the Donbas, and it took Crimea back in 2014. So the question is where we go from there. They are not going to hand those territories back to anyone. So we need to negotiate spheres of influence backed by serious force as was the case before the fall of the USSR. The proposal to have a neutral Ukraine was sensible provided all parties are very seriously held to their word. Lastly, we should remember that Crimea used to be Russian until very recently and that Ukraine is very special for Russia, so it's far from obvious to me that what they are doing there means they plan to attack/invade other neighbouring countries afterwards...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- laGrenouille 4y ago
  But arguably the EU is even more motivated by the security issues of an emboldened Russia. Combined with the much stronger environmental push from groups in Europe, it seems reasonable that they would push as much or more for energy-based sanctions against Russia.
  - mytailorisrich 4y ago
    There is no to very little security issues. Russia is never going to attack the EU/Nato, which are many times stronger that it is, and we've seen that Russia is already struggling in Ukraine. At the moment Europe is going through a self-inflicted crisis that is not justified, be it by security or "the environment". It may be reasonable to decrease dependency on Russia but the sensible way is to have alternatives in place first. Edit: Baltic states are in Nato, so my comment fully applies to them. Saying that "Russia did invade Ukraine so they could attack Nato" is equivalent to saying "the US invaded Iraq so they could attack China". It is plainly a rhetorical fallacy.
    - ben_w 4y ago
      How much are you willing to bet on that? I saw plenty of people saying before the invasion that it would be irrational for Putin to invade and therefore he wouldn't. He did it anyway and we can easily see from how badly it's gone so far that it wasn't rational, so the obvious conclusion is that he's not acting rationally.
      - jleyank 4y ago
        He might be relying on people's grasp of history being terrible and that they have far more desire to be warm than concerned about naked aggression. Which is probably true, although frustrating after all of the examples Europe provided itself in the 1800's and 1900's.
      - treis 4y ago
        >I saw plenty of people saying before the invasion that it would be irrational for Putin to invade and therefore he wouldn't. I didn't, but nevertheless there's a difference between "it's irrational because the cost is higher than the benefit" and "it's irrational because there's no benefit to getting your ass kicked".
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ben_w 4y ago
  > Europe so enthusiastically shot itself in the foot The alternative is letting Putin continue to believe that his vision of Russian irredentism — which could very easily go right though my home in Berlin and not stop for a further 100 miles or so — is something the rest of us will sit back and allow. Putin started a war, even if he hasn't officially called it one yet. Hopefully it will be stopped before he does call it that, but nothing about his decision to invade Ukraine appears either rational or connected with reality.
  - nivenkos 4y ago
    > The alternative is letting Putin continue to believe that his vision of Russian irredentism — which could very easily go right though my home in Berlin Maybe if Germany had Russian-majority areas, had started banning the use of Russian, and had violent demonstration clashes resulting in neo-Nazis burning ethnic Russian supporters and seperatists alive - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Odessa_clashes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Odessa_clashes I don't support Putin or the invasion at all, but it's not like he just invaded out of the blue. Ukraine also failed to allow Donetsk and Luhansk to hold independent referendums for secession - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements#Elections_in_the_DPR_and_LPR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements#Elections_in_... The situation is nowhere near as black and white as just "Putin madman". A peaceful compromise around referendums and the right to self-determination would have been the best outcome, but now we should be neutral and put the stability of our own countries first.
    - ben_w 4y ago
      Unfortunately there is evidence that Putin was deliberately stirring up trouble. Even more unfortunately, at that level propaganda is beyond my ken to reliability disabuse, and I know full well that hawks want me to fear more than I need to. Yet it is the locals he's claiming to want to liberate who are shooting his troops, the cities he's saying he wants to save that are being flattened by his missiles. Reminds me of the stories of Afghanistan, where we blew up weddings and then were surprised the locals didn't like us.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  Probably because relatively minor economic pain now is better than a dictator with imperial ambitions starting another European war. I mean, how much is Lithuania or Poland worth? Or if he keeps rolling West, how much do the Germans want to sacrifice now to make it less likely Berlin ends up under Russian control.
nivenkos 4y ago
And the US + Canada are doing the LNG exports to Europe now. It's a massive win for the US, the arms exports too.
- throwaway_4ever 4y ago
  > It's a massive win for the US, the arms exports too. No, it’s not. Half our politicians are pissed we’re spending $40 billion.
  - soco 4y ago
    Doesn't that get - at least in part - compensated by the oil/gas exports?

by treis 4y ago

mytailorisrich 4y ago

It certainly explains why the US pushed so much for sanctions against Russia, and it's less clear why Europe so enthusiastically shot itself in the foot by following suit. Edit: this is not a "minor economic pain" for Europe and might reach extreme consequences later this year. On the other hand, the US have played extremely well, gaining on all fronts (increased influence through enlarged Nato and, increased weapons sales, increases oil/gas profits), while China is left in an awkward position. Only downside seems to have been the push for alternatives to dollar/western-centric financial system.

coremoff 4y ago
> so enthusiastically shot itself into foot is rather unfair I think - there are very good reasons why an unpleasant action might be necessary
- pydry 4y ago
  Germany is set to run out of gas during winter under optimistic scenarios. This is looking less like a bit of unpleasantness and more like economic suicide by the day. LNG is not going to suffice. There isnt even the port capacity to bring it in. Rationing would have to be extreme just to ride out the winter. And then what? Hitting the economic self destruct button so that Ukraine reserves the right to join NATO doesnt look so appealing any more.
  - Retric 4y ago
    Running out in this case just means a spike in prices or the dreaded rationing. Lowering thermostats can dramatically reduce fuel consumption, how to achieve that nationwide is an open question.
    - rohitb91 4y ago
      And if it's a cold winter? And if buildings can't be heated and pipes burst? If businesses shutdown because of freezes?
      - Retric 4y ago
        It takes vastly less energy to keep pipes from freezing than it does to keep indoor temperatures at ~70f. If supplies where dropping 80% Germany would be facing real issues, but that's not the scale we are talking about.
- mytailorisrich 4y ago
  Well, so far this hasn't deterred anything nor apparently slowed Russia down but it has had massively negative consequences for Europe. In general, basic self-interest in geopolitics means to always to something only with a clear upside for yourselves (duh) With the energy prices as they stand, the UK for example is heading for a social and potentially humanitarian disaster this winter. I don't see how "being firm against Putin" or "Ukraine" justify it.
  - lindly 4y ago
    >Well, so far this hasn't deterred anything nor apparently slowed Russia down but it has had massively negative consequences for Europe. This a ridiculous absurd assumption. Russia has massive supply issues for just about everything, including defense related industries. >In general, basic self-interest in geopolitics means to always to something only with a clear upside for yourselves (duh) [Citation needed]. If the downsides for your enemy are massive it makes sense to take a hit your self. In fact Putin did count on the west to continue it's cynical way of doing business like it did after all the previous Russian wars (Chechnya 1/2, Georgia, Syria, Crimea, Donbass). I'm sure, if the EU could have made the threat of doing what it did later, this would have deterred the invasion. It just didn't have any credibility due to past decisions. But now future threats should be take more seriously. This might stabilize the world as a hole. >I don't see how "being firm against Putin" or "Ukraine" justify it. The next winter is going to suck and most people might not have realized that. But speaking of humanitarian disasters, this is our best bet to avoid a way, way bigger humanitarian disaster in the baltics.
  - EB-Barrington 4y ago
    Russians are raping and executing civilians, and Russian authorities have stated on more than one occasion that other countries beyond Ukraine will also be punished. What extra justification is needed?
    - coward-guy 4y ago
      Ombudsman Denisova was sacked for excessive lies about woman rapes. The Commissioner of the President of Ukraine for Children's Rights Daria Gerasimchuk on the Polish TV channel "Belsat" exposed fake Ukrainian propaganda about the alleged violence by the Russian military against Ukrainian children. Proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfUBRGUH-Kc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfUBRGUH-Kc The Prosecutor General's Office of Ukraine has not a single confirmed fact of violence so far.
khuey 4y ago
I think the motivation for the EU attempting to deter war on its eastern borders is straightforward.
- makomk 4y ago
  Extremely straightforward, yes. What I don't think a lot of Americans get is just how utterly, terrifyingly destructive the wars of conquest that preceded the current era of peace were for Europe - especially the two world wars. Large chunks of entire generations killed, wounded and traumatized, whole citities levelled, regions rendered unfit for anything beyond farming. One of the major justifications for the European Union as an institution was to supposedly ensure that nothing like this would happen again. Now we have a brutal war of conquest right next to the EU's eastern border, and sabre-rattling about how some of its member states might be next. It's in the direct self-preservation interest of a lot of countries that Russia fails and fails hard.
  - mytailorisrich 4y ago
    It's not straightforward, it's simplistic, and a way to scare people into accepting a narrative (like turning public opinion into agreeing to join Nato in some countries...) Europe (EU/Nato) is not at risk of attack by Russia. It's not clear why Finland would suddenly be at risk. What is happening is a continuation of the fall of the USSR when Russia lost very big and was hastily written off. Russia has somewhat recovered and is asserting its claims and interests. While we should hold firm when this clashes with our own, saying that Russia should be beaten into submission is not going to work and is only going to perpetuate conflicts. As it stands Russia is going to take the Donbas, and it took Crimea back in 2014. So the question is where we go from there. They are not going to hand those territories back to anyone. So we need to negotiate spheres of influence backed by serious force as was the case before the fall of the USSR. The proposal to have a neutral Ukraine was sensible provided all parties are very seriously held to their word. Lastly, we should remember that Crimea used to be Russian until very recently and that Ukraine is very special for Russia, so it's far from obvious to me that what they are doing there means they plan to attack/invade other neighbouring countries afterwards...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
laGrenouille 4y ago
But arguably the EU is even more motivated by the security issues of an emboldened Russia. Combined with the much stronger environmental push from groups in Europe, it seems reasonable that they would push as much or more for energy-based sanctions against Russia.
- mytailorisrich 4y ago
  There is no to very little security issues. Russia is never going to attack the EU/Nato, which are many times stronger that it is, and we've seen that Russia is already struggling in Ukraine. At the moment Europe is going through a self-inflicted crisis that is not justified, be it by security or "the environment". It may be reasonable to decrease dependency on Russia but the sensible way is to have alternatives in place first. Edit: Baltic states are in Nato, so my comment fully applies to them. Saying that "Russia did invade Ukraine so they could attack Nato" is equivalent to saying "the US invaded Iraq so they could attack China". It is plainly a rhetorical fallacy.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    How much are you willing to bet on that? I saw plenty of people saying before the invasion that it would be irrational for Putin to invade and therefore he wouldn't. He did it anyway and we can easily see from how badly it's gone so far that it wasn't rational, so the obvious conclusion is that he's not acting rationally.
    - jleyank 4y ago
      He might be relying on people's grasp of history being terrible and that they have far more desire to be warm than concerned about naked aggression. Which is probably true, although frustrating after all of the examples Europe provided itself in the 1800's and 1900's.
    - treis 4y ago
      >I saw plenty of people saying before the invasion that it would be irrational for Putin to invade and therefore he wouldn't. I didn't, but nevertheless there's a difference between "it's irrational because the cost is higher than the benefit" and "it's irrational because there's no benefit to getting your ass kicked".
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ben_w 4y ago
> Europe so enthusiastically shot itself in the foot The alternative is letting Putin continue to believe that his vision of Russian irredentism — which could very easily go right though my home in Berlin and not stop for a further 100 miles or so — is something the rest of us will sit back and allow. Putin started a war, even if he hasn't officially called it one yet. Hopefully it will be stopped before he does call it that, but nothing about his decision to invade Ukraine appears either rational or connected with reality.
- nivenkos 4y ago
  > The alternative is letting Putin continue to believe that his vision of Russian irredentism — which could very easily go right though my home in Berlin Maybe if Germany had Russian-majority areas, had started banning the use of Russian, and had violent demonstration clashes resulting in neo-Nazis burning ethnic Russian supporters and seperatists alive - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Odessa_clashes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Odessa_clashes I don't support Putin or the invasion at all, but it's not like he just invaded out of the blue. Ukraine also failed to allow Donetsk and Luhansk to hold independent referendums for secession - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements#Elections_in_the_DPR_and_LPR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements#Elections_in_... The situation is nowhere near as black and white as just "Putin madman". A peaceful compromise around referendums and the right to self-determination would have been the best outcome, but now we should be neutral and put the stability of our own countries first.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    Unfortunately there is evidence that Putin was deliberately stirring up trouble. Even more unfortunately, at that level propaganda is beyond my ken to reliability disabuse, and I know full well that hawks want me to fear more than I need to. Yet it is the locals he's claiming to want to liberate who are shooting his troops, the cities he's saying he wants to save that are being flattened by his missiles. Reminds me of the stories of Afghanistan, where we blew up weddings and then were surprised the locals didn't like us.
HWR_14 4y ago
Probably because relatively minor economic pain now is better than a dictator with imperial ambitions starting another European war. I mean, how much is Lithuania or Poland worth? Or if he keeps rolling West, how much do the Germans want to sacrifice now to make it less likely Berlin ends up under Russian control.

nivenkos 4y ago

And the US + Canada are doing the LNG exports to Europe now. It's a massive win for the US, the arms exports too.

throwaway_4ever 4y ago
> It's a massive win for the US, the arms exports too. No, it’s not. Half our politicians are pissed we’re spending $40 billion.
- soco 4y ago
  Doesn't that get - at least in part - compensated by the oil/gas exports?