6 ms·
the "energy war" isn't an economic blunder, it's a consequence. It's a consequence of politics and and it reveals alot about what is going on under the covers -
by sgt101 4y ago
the "energy war" isn't an economic blunder, it's a consequence. It's a consequence of politics and and it reveals alot about what is going on under the covers - but the outcome will be simple.
We swap growth and prosperity for recession and hard times. But we keep geopolitical independence.
The alternative is to go along with the Russians until the next time, when the next time will be far too late.
- throwie_wayward 4y ago
- causi 4y agoIndeed. There is no logical reason to invade Ukraine unless Russia also intends to seize the Suwałki Gap and the Baltic states.
- polishdude20 4y agoUgh. The Suwalki gap? I'll be near that area in the next few weeks. Do I have something to fear?
- gerikson 4y agoDo you think the Russian armed forces can redeploy from Ukraine (while holding onto their invasion gains there) and launch a successful attack against NATO members?
- polishdude20 4y agoNot from Ukraine. I'm not sure if there are forces in the Kaliningrad region though. But you're right. Poland is a NATO country and that would be very unlikely.
- gerikson 4y agoI'm in Sweden and used to worry (and train to resist) a Soviet/Russian air and sea assault on Gotland. I'm a lot less worried now.
- polishdude20 4y agoI'm not European so I'd be very interested to know why?
- causi 4y agoFrankly it's more dangerous now than it's been at any time since the 80s. Russian forces are so weak that basically any confrontation with Western powers is going to be nuclear from the very start. The fact Western powers haven't said that a tactical nuclear strike inside Ukraine will be responded to in kind is basically permission on a silver platter for Putin to do so.
- jemmyw 4y agoI thought they did say, or it leaked out that they have told the Russians: they would respond with conventional airstrikes to destroy all Russian military personnel and equipment in Ukraine, including Crimea.
- gerikson 4y agoPutin using nukes is a sign of weakness and he knows it.
- timeon 4y ago> The fact Western powers haven't said that a tactical nuclear strike inside Ukraine will be responded to is that really the fact? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/02/us-russia-putin-ukraine-war-david-petraeus https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/02/us-russia-puti... how about this?
- danaris 4y agoProbably because it's become painfully clear just how poorly prepared the Russian armed forces are for this, or any, modern conflict. Their equipment is old and badly maintained, their personnel are ill-trained and have low morale, and their intelligence appears to be of the "tell the egomaniac dictator what he wants to hear" variety rather than the "get the best information, no matter what it may imply about relative strengths or whatever" variety. Putin tried for months to secure Ukraine and is being pushed back. He's instituted a draft to replace lost personnel there, and over a hundred thousand able-bodied Russians have fled the country rather than take the risk that they're called up. I wouldn't put the odds at zero (because Putin is also not the most stable and sensible person), but it seems very unlikely that he would even try to send troops to open up a completely new front, against actual NATO members, let alone succeed in any meaningful way.
- sgt101 4y agoI think that they may have intended that for "phase 3", if Ukraine had fallen swiftly then 2 years from "then" a push into the Balts would have very much been on the cards.
- Teknoman117 4y agoRemoved. Apparently I can't read.
- detaro 4y agoWTF, the comment you reply to is very clearly not saying that...
- Teknoman117 4y ago> We swap growth and prosperity for recession and hard times. But we keep geopolitical independence. > The alternative is to go along with the Russians until the next time, when the next time will be far too late. Sorry, but that didn't read as sarcasm to me? Or, unless the "swapping growth and prosperity" is in reference to Brexit and is not a reference to supporting Ukraine, or is a reference to short lived gains by depending on Russian energy sources.
- mongol 4y agoReading comprehension... can be improved
- MrBuddyCasino 4y ago> But we keep geopolitical independence „You can have all the independence you want, as long as it exactly aligns with the US state department.“
- incone123 4y agoI'll take that over aligning with the politburo.
- sgt101 4y agoyeah.... it's not good, but it's better than the alternative. And, if we wiggle hard we can probably get out of it in a few years. Once we go under the Russian hand that really will be that.
- petre 4y agoI'll take the US state department over Russia any day, thank you. It's why most Eastern Europeans have no love for FDR and Churchill: they basically gave our countries to Stalin.
- voidr 4y ago> I'll take the US state department over Russia any day, thank you. The value of the Euro disagrees.
- petre 4y agoIt's because Germany screwed up. The US has long enough told the EU, specifically Germany, to ditch Russian gas and direct 2% of their GDP towards their militaries/NATO. Did Merkel listen? No. Only Poland and to some extent Romania listened. France already had the most capable military in the EU.
- voidr 4y ago> The US has long enough told the EU, specifically Germany, to ditch Russian gas That's kind of like telling the US to ditch China for manufacturing. It would make sense, it's just easier said than done. The issue is that it seems that Europe lacks gas reserves, Russia was a convenient and reliable source and it would have made no economic sense to diversify the same way it makes no economic sense for the US to bring back manufacturing from China. > France already had the most capable military in the EU. The answer to that is World War 2, the Germans were reluctant to militarise, for a while they were outright forbidden to.
- DrScientist 4y agoNope. The alternative to to not provoke a conflict when you are not ready. ie invest in alternatives - so you aren't on the hook down the line, but don't provoke a conflict when you are on the hook. Russia has the economy about the size of Italy - and as you can see by the progress in Ukraine, it's not going to be able to sweep across Europe anytime soon. There is no existential threat - apart from the one we have just created by timing the conflict when we are not ready.
- oezi 4y agoYes, agree very much. The energy war was a consequence that in a market economy it is almost impossible to choose options which aren't price optimal (cheap). Germany gets a lot of flak for buying Russian gas cheaply the last 30 years in ever increasing volumes. But it seems strange to argue that Germany just should have bought gas from Qatar or the US for double the price from the start. How should Germany have done that? Import tax on Russian gas? Laws preventing importing cheap gas from the east? Sounds a bit aggressive towards our big neighbor to the east. No, I think the article is just plain wrong. Europe benefitted from cheap gas over the last decades and it will be somewhat affected by higher prices for this and next year, but it will accelerate the transition to renewables and strengthen nuclear in those countries in Europe where it is still an option. In the end it push Europe in the right direction.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- dane-pgp 4y ago> buying Russian gas cheaply the last 30 years This is what people miss. What is the opportunity cost of over-paying for gas for 30 years? By not over-paying, Germany was able to invest in its own economy, and it is now in a position to help Ukraine and complete its transition to renewables. Germany's strategy is currently unpopular because the costs all happen at once, whereas people generally put up with small costs spread over a long time, but it would have been foolish to harm German economic growth while Putin could just sell his gas somewhere else and grow the Russian economy at a faster rate than Germany's.
- kimixa 4y agoOne cost is that is directly funded the regime that is now invading a neighboring country, causing more burden on the current military budget as the populace demands support for them, and shoring up local defense budgets as it puts support to the fear that it may be needed at some point in the not-too-distant future. You can't really say what would have happened, but if nobody purchased that cheap gas, I think it's safe to say the Russia of today would look very different, with that being a rather large part of the country's total exports.
- simonh 4y ago>The alternative is to go along with the Russians until the next time, when the next time will be far too late. Arguably we're already past that. This is what too late looks like.