4 ms·

Europe thought rainbows, friendship, and deeper economic investment would be a more effective deterrent than military might. They doubled down on investing in R

Europe thought rainbows, friendship, and deeper economic investment would be a more effective deterrent than military might. They doubled down on investing in Russian energy while criticizing the US and NATO for their doctrine of military deterrence.

croes 4y ago
They thought peace is more stable when both sides are economically intertwined. And that is also the case. What options would there be against Russia without the possibility of economic sanctions? War! And not only in Ukraine
- qsort 4y ago
  > What options would there be against Russia without the possibility of economic sanctions? Not fueling their imperial fanfiction to begin with. The original mistake was offering them aid after the fall of the USSR without requiring steps towards liberal democracy in exchange.
  - croes 4y ago
    They took steps towards a liberal democracy. Remember Yeltsin? That led to the rise of oil and gas oligarchs meanwhile the ordinary people suffered. That's why they voted for a "strong" leader: Putin.
  - hef19898 4y ago
    Ah, of course. Because execting a Morgenthau plan on one of the two major nuclear powers, one that is currently desintegrating, ever was a good idea...
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  There's a difference between trading with Russia and depending so heavily on Russia for the most critical resources. Notably, sanctions work best when ceasing trade harms the sanctioner more than the sanctioned, but the opposite is true with respect to energy--Russia can sell to the rest of the world (apart from those countries who are also sanctioning Russian energy, who can do so due to more energy-independent policies) while Europe can't easily source energy from new suppliers. > What options would there be against Russia without the possibility of economic sanctions? Continue to supply arms to Ukraine without an energy crisis?
  - kyriakos 4y ago
    Russia can't sell as easily as it sells to Europe for the same reasons Europe can't buy from other sources easily. Pipeline availability and capacity.
    - throwaway894345 4y ago
      Russia seems to be selling just fine because it has infrastructure and capacity to send to other regions (though no doubt it's diminished). Europe has relatively few LNG pipelines from other regions (and LNG tankers and other infrastructure is similarly in short supply).
wongarsu 4y ago
The EU member states used to be in near constant war for centuries, starting two world wars in the process. Economic entanglement was one of the major factors that finally lead to a lasting peace. Applying the same concept to Russia was reasonable. With another Russian leader it might have worked. But Putin, for whatever reason, chose potential glory over economic prosperity. A move so foreign to European democracies that we refused to see it coming.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  >Economic entanglement was one of the major factors that finally lead to a lasting peace. There couldn't possibly be anything more false. This horse has been beaten to death already and should just be let to die. European countries had entangled economies and were still going to war with each other. France and Germany were each other's biggest trading partners and that didn't stop them fighting each other in WW1 or WW2. The reason why we have had peace after WW2 is the implementation of fully fledged democracies with separation of powers in the major European leaderships along with US peacekeeping and the Marshal plan. Russia was not a democracy anymore after the 1993 coup since the president there could do whatever he wants without the parliament able to stop him and therefore should not have been trusted as a fair trading partner.
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    I'm not sure why this was downvoted, this is largely the right answer. The US has had troops all over the continent and the USSR was an external, existential threat against which they were united. People weren't worried about their stock portfolio, they were worried about the Soviet Union nuking their cities.
- hef19898 4y ago
  Agree with everything except the last sentence: that the Russian invasion failed so hard is partially due to the support Ukraine got since 2014 and still gets. For me, it was more like preparing for the worst while hoping for the best. Because who wouod have thought anyone would be stupid enough to lanch a major land war, in Europe, against a well prepared country that can easily be supplied by its allies, an invasion that was signaled light years in advance? So yeah, it was a surprise that it actually happened, and it hit a rather well prepared Ukraine.
benwad 4y ago
US/NATO have military all over Europe, and that hasn't prevented this either. The reason the threat doesn't work is because Ukraine isn't a NATO member.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  The US has been pulling troops out of Europe for the last 20 years, and during that time, NATO's policy has been letting Putin walk all over its neighbors. If NATO stood up 8 years ago like they're doing today, then there would never have been a second invasion of Ukraine to begin with.

croes 4y ago

They thought peace is more stable when both sides are economically intertwined. And that is also the case. What options would there be against Russia without the possibility of economic sanctions? War! And not only in Ukraine

qsort 4y ago
> What options would there be against Russia without the possibility of economic sanctions? Not fueling their imperial fanfiction to begin with. The original mistake was offering them aid after the fall of the USSR without requiring steps towards liberal democracy in exchange.
- croes 4y ago
  They took steps towards a liberal democracy. Remember Yeltsin? That led to the rise of oil and gas oligarchs meanwhile the ordinary people suffered. That's why they voted for a "strong" leader: Putin.
- hef19898 4y ago
  Ah, of course. Because execting a Morgenthau plan on one of the two major nuclear powers, one that is currently desintegrating, ever was a good idea...
throwaway894345 4y ago
There's a difference between trading with Russia and depending so heavily on Russia for the most critical resources. Notably, sanctions work best when ceasing trade harms the sanctioner more than the sanctioned, but the opposite is true with respect to energy--Russia can sell to the rest of the world (apart from those countries who are also sanctioning Russian energy, who can do so due to more energy-independent policies) while Europe can't easily source energy from new suppliers. > What options would there be against Russia without the possibility of economic sanctions? Continue to supply arms to Ukraine without an energy crisis?
- kyriakos 4y ago
  Russia can't sell as easily as it sells to Europe for the same reasons Europe can't buy from other sources easily. Pipeline availability and capacity.
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    Russia seems to be selling just fine because it has infrastructure and capacity to send to other regions (though no doubt it's diminished). Europe has relatively few LNG pipelines from other regions (and LNG tankers and other infrastructure is similarly in short supply).

wongarsu 4y ago

The EU member states used to be in near constant war for centuries, starting two world wars in the process. Economic entanglement was one of the major factors that finally lead to a lasting peace. Applying the same concept to Russia was reasonable. With another Russian leader it might have worked. But Putin, for whatever reason, chose potential glory over economic prosperity. A move so foreign to European democracies that we refused to see it coming.

ChuckNorris89 4y ago
>Economic entanglement was one of the major factors that finally lead to a lasting peace. There couldn't possibly be anything more false. This horse has been beaten to death already and should just be let to die. European countries had entangled economies and were still going to war with each other. France and Germany were each other's biggest trading partners and that didn't stop them fighting each other in WW1 or WW2. The reason why we have had peace after WW2 is the implementation of fully fledged democracies with separation of powers in the major European leaderships along with US peacekeeping and the Marshal plan. Russia was not a democracy anymore after the 1993 coup since the president there could do whatever he wants without the parliament able to stop him and therefore should not have been trusted as a fair trading partner.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  I'm not sure why this was downvoted, this is largely the right answer. The US has had troops all over the continent and the USSR was an external, existential threat against which they were united. People weren't worried about their stock portfolio, they were worried about the Soviet Union nuking their cities.
hef19898 4y ago
Agree with everything except the last sentence: that the Russian invasion failed so hard is partially due to the support Ukraine got since 2014 and still gets. For me, it was more like preparing for the worst while hoping for the best. Because who wouod have thought anyone would be stupid enough to lanch a major land war, in Europe, against a well prepared country that can easily be supplied by its allies, an invasion that was signaled light years in advance? So yeah, it was a surprise that it actually happened, and it hit a rather well prepared Ukraine.

benwad 4y ago

US/NATO have military all over Europe, and that hasn't prevented this either. The reason the threat doesn't work is because Ukraine isn't a NATO member.

throwaway894345 4y ago
The US has been pulling troops out of Europe for the last 20 years, and during that time, NATO's policy has been letting Putin walk all over its neighbors. If NATO stood up 8 years ago like they're doing today, then there would never have been a second invasion of Ukraine to begin with.