4 ms·

Hate Russia all you want but this energy crisis was entirely "free world" created and didn't start in February this year. Half of these idiots have resigned or

Hate Russia all you want but this energy crisis was entirely "free world" created and didn't start in February this year. Half of these idiots have resigned or are close to resignation due to an energy and food crisis that they have single-handedly created by the "free world" the last decade. They will just resign and live of their pensions while the rest of Europe is slipping into poverty[1]. Let's for a moment consider that Ukraine still makes transit money off of Russian gas. Has threatened Europe with gas cuts for the last two decades on multiple occasions. And even though Russia has been put through unprecedented sanctions, which actually sent prices soaring still supplies Europe with energy even though the west tried to effectively embargo them from the rest of the world. They are in fact slowly lifting restrictions especially on food supplies[2]. But due to the uncertainty Von der Moron brought into the markets the prices are not due to go back down anytime soon. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-12/what-if-markets-plan-doomsday-if-russia-turns-off-the-gas https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-12/what-if-m... [2] https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/eu-soften-sanctions-russian-banks-allow-food-trade-2022-07-19/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/eu-soften-sanctions-r...

emptysongglass 4y ago
> And even though Russia has been put through unprecedented sanctions, which actually sent prices soaring still supplies Europe with energy even though the west tried to effectively embargo them from the rest of the world. Let's not pretend they are doing this out of loving-kindness: they use this money to fund their invasion of Ukraine.
- zosima 4y ago
  And Germany will be using the gas to heat Ukrainian soldiers in training. So what? The situation is a mess, and painting Russia and russians as having no interest but war, does not make it less messy.
  - emptysongglass 4y ago
    So this is weird because there seems to be a real groundswell of effort to resort to bothesidesism particularly on topics of China and Russia. The situation is not "a mess" ethically no. One side (Russia) walked into a country and started blowing up entire cities full of people. Literally Mariupol formerly a city of 431,859 people is a wasteland of rubble with an estimated pop of 100k. Are all those people dead? No, most are displaced but the callous way in which Russia has resorted to the same truly despicable war tactics it used to level Grozny again, here, in a sovereign nation should make us weep. It feels like the internet is in large part fuelling this truly horrifying miracle of humans trying to "level" the narrative.
    - cscurmudgeon 4y ago
      > sovereign nation should make us weep Definitely. But the double standards is maddening. The Western public has ignored much much larger and more recent conflicts. https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/12/1078972 https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/12/1078972
      - tomjen3 4y ago
        Yes we have. Most of that is because we can't identify a good guy, but regardless of that I can see how it changes anything about the justification of _this_ war.
      - belorn 4y ago
        There is a distinct difference between wars based on territorial expansionism and civil wars. When one country invade an other for territorial gain, it is fairly easy to identify an aggressor and a defender. With a civil war you got factions within a country fighting for control. The start of the conflict tend to be different. In an invasion you got an external force starting the war by sending in troop and initiating the conflict, and you got a clear defined border of conflict that starts out at the border and then fans out. The capital tend to be attacked at a late part of the conflict, unless it is located directly at the border. In a civil war the war generally breaks out at multiple places from within, usually in the capital where the existing seat of power is located. The conflict border is generally unclear and fighting occur at multiple locations all over. Invasion also tend to have a history of territorial disputes about where the border between two nations should be drawn. Civil war on the other hands tend to have a history of demographic nature, where different groups within a country are fighting for control of the country. In terms of public support, especially since world war 2, invasions that has aim of taking territory is generally feared. If they invade Ukraine today in order for Lebensraum, then what is to say that Poland will not be next for the exact same purpose? Which country can ever feel save when a larger nearby country starts to invade others for the purpose of taking territory? Civil wars on the other hand is a human tragedy, but the factions fighting inside Yemen doesn't have a reason to make Poland the next target. It not so much of a double standard but rather human priority of things that feel threatening to themselves.
  - QuadmasterXLII 4y ago
    There's no painting happening, the russian government just has no interest but war.
adrianN 4y ago
Yeah, this energy crisis started during the cold war when we thought that trading with the Soviet Union would prevent war (maybe it has?). It was exacerbated by a delayed transition to renewable power. Putin is currently doing more for the climate than our politicians have done in the last thirty years.
- taylodl 4y ago
  Putin is currently doing more for the climate than our politicians have done in the last thirty years. There's a rule I'm sure Putin never saw himself fulfilling!
- Gwypaas 4y ago
  Honestly, not trading with Russia would have been short sighted. EU is founded on integrating the belligerents of WW2 close enough that it would be unthinkable to happen again. The same method, which at least has worked once, was tried with Russia and now 30 years later, or more likely in 2014 with the invasion of Crimea we can conclude that Russia is different in some core way of thinking. Not too different though, looking at how the Baltic states have developed when they got the choice. The alternative scenario, with a Russia still riding on the tail ends of soviet military might in steep decline not even given a chance in the early 2000s seems like a recipe for an even worse outcome than we have today.
NicoJuicy 4y ago
The energy crisis is created by Russia obviously. Cutting off countries is something they didn't do during previous wars. They are doing it now.
TMWNN 4y ago
>Half of these idiots have resigned or are close to resignation due to an energy and food crisis that they have single-handedly created by the "free world" the last decade. They will just resign and live of their pensions while the rest of Europe is slipping into poverty. Such as German foreign minister Heiko Maas, who when Trump at the UN warned four years ago that his country is endangering itself by increasing dependence on Russia, laughed with other German envoys <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfJv9QYrlwgepe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfJv9QYrlwgepe>. He is now enjoying a quiet retirement in Saarland.

emptysongglass 4y ago

> And even though Russia has been put through unprecedented sanctions, which actually sent prices soaring still supplies Europe with energy even though the west tried to effectively embargo them from the rest of the world. Let's not pretend they are doing this out of loving-kindness: they use this money to fund their invasion of Ukraine.

zosima 4y ago
And Germany will be using the gas to heat Ukrainian soldiers in training. So what? The situation is a mess, and painting Russia and russians as having no interest but war, does not make it less messy.
- emptysongglass 4y ago
  So this is weird because there seems to be a real groundswell of effort to resort to bothesidesism particularly on topics of China and Russia. The situation is not "a mess" ethically no. One side (Russia) walked into a country and started blowing up entire cities full of people. Literally Mariupol formerly a city of 431,859 people is a wasteland of rubble with an estimated pop of 100k. Are all those people dead? No, most are displaced but the callous way in which Russia has resorted to the same truly despicable war tactics it used to level Grozny again, here, in a sovereign nation should make us weep. It feels like the internet is in large part fuelling this truly horrifying miracle of humans trying to "level" the narrative.
  - cscurmudgeon 4y ago
    > sovereign nation should make us weep Definitely. But the double standards is maddening. The Western public has ignored much much larger and more recent conflicts. https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/12/1078972 https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/12/1078972
    - tomjen3 4y ago
      Yes we have. Most of that is because we can't identify a good guy, but regardless of that I can see how it changes anything about the justification of _this_ war.
    - belorn 4y ago
      There is a distinct difference between wars based on territorial expansionism and civil wars. When one country invade an other for territorial gain, it is fairly easy to identify an aggressor and a defender. With a civil war you got factions within a country fighting for control. The start of the conflict tend to be different. In an invasion you got an external force starting the war by sending in troop and initiating the conflict, and you got a clear defined border of conflict that starts out at the border and then fans out. The capital tend to be attacked at a late part of the conflict, unless it is located directly at the border. In a civil war the war generally breaks out at multiple places from within, usually in the capital where the existing seat of power is located. The conflict border is generally unclear and fighting occur at multiple locations all over. Invasion also tend to have a history of territorial disputes about where the border between two nations should be drawn. Civil war on the other hands tend to have a history of demographic nature, where different groups within a country are fighting for control of the country. In terms of public support, especially since world war 2, invasions that has aim of taking territory is generally feared. If they invade Ukraine today in order for Lebensraum, then what is to say that Poland will not be next for the exact same purpose? Which country can ever feel save when a larger nearby country starts to invade others for the purpose of taking territory? Civil wars on the other hand is a human tragedy, but the factions fighting inside Yemen doesn't have a reason to make Poland the next target. It not so much of a double standard but rather human priority of things that feel threatening to themselves.
- QuadmasterXLII 4y ago
  There's no painting happening, the russian government just has no interest but war.

adrianN 4y ago

Yeah, this energy crisis started during the cold war when we thought that trading with the Soviet Union would prevent war (maybe it has?). It was exacerbated by a delayed transition to renewable power. Putin is currently doing more for the climate than our politicians have done in the last thirty years.

taylodl 4y ago
Putin is currently doing more for the climate than our politicians have done in the last thirty years. There's a rule I'm sure Putin never saw himself fulfilling!
Gwypaas 4y ago
Honestly, not trading with Russia would have been short sighted. EU is founded on integrating the belligerents of WW2 close enough that it would be unthinkable to happen again. The same method, which at least has worked once, was tried with Russia and now 30 years later, or more likely in 2014 with the invasion of Crimea we can conclude that Russia is different in some core way of thinking. Not too different though, looking at how the Baltic states have developed when they got the choice. The alternative scenario, with a Russia still riding on the tail ends of soviet military might in steep decline not even given a chance in the early 2000s seems like a recipe for an even worse outcome than we have today.

NicoJuicy 4y ago

The energy crisis is created by Russia obviously. Cutting off countries is something they didn't do during previous wars. They are doing it now.

TMWNN 4y ago

>Half of these idiots have resigned or are close to resignation due to an energy and food crisis that they have single-handedly created by the "free world" the last decade. They will just resign and live of their pensions while the rest of Europe is slipping into poverty. Such as German foreign minister Heiko Maas, who when Trump at the UN warned four years ago that his country is endangering itself by increasing dependence on Russia, laughed with other German envoys <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfJv9QYrlwgepe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfJv9QYrlwgepe>. He is now enjoying a quiet retirement in Saarland.