3 ms·
I was in no position to make any decisions related to energy politics (except voting), and energy politics isn't my strong suit either, but I always thought tha
by archi42 4y ago
I was in no position to make any decisions related to energy politics (except voting), and energy politics isn't my strong suit either, but I always thought that the "mutual dependency" sounded like a good argument against a war; much better than MAD or other militaristic options. But, unlike policy makers, I didn't grasp the extend of the dependency on gas in our country.
Though not preparing a backup plan after the first invasion in 2014 was a bad decision. Little hindsight needed here.
- Teever 4y agoPeople have been making these kinds of excuses about trading autonomy for short-term profits for at least a century.[0] At the end of the day all that matters is that a nation is self-sufficient in the essentials and participates in the global economy that augment that self-sufficiency without damaging it. Anything else is hubris because you're just doomed to repeat history, and it's outright greed because the people making the decisions aren't the ones going to bear the brunt when they inevitably fail. [0] https://www.reuters.com/article/idUS74746206720140627 https://www.reuters.com/article/idUS74746206720140627
- izacus 4y agoExcept that for most European countries, full self-sufficiency is simply not possible, especially without sacrificing many other aspects of prosperity (not to mention climate issues). So talking about this is interesting "huehuehuhue" farting, but not a very realistic political strategy.
- christophilus 4y agoI think mutual dependency is a good argument, except when one side has a much more valuable asset than the other side. In this case, Russia clearly had the most leverage in the situation. Energy independence may not be realistic for much of Europe, but avoiding a single point of failure / a dominant single supplier seems like it probably would have been wise.