3 ms·

Damn that one of most brain dead comments i saw in a while. Appeasement never ends well, if EU wasn't so soft on 2014 invasion, r*ssian would not dare to attack

Damn that one of most brain dead comments i saw in a while. Appeasement never ends well, if EU wasn't so soft on 2014 invasion, r*ssian would not dare to attack in 2022.

ExoticPearTree 3y ago
It's not about appeasement. It is about minding your own business and doing what is best for your citizens. And cheap gas is better than expensive gas, and by extension cheap energy is what is best. You can downvote me as much as you want, but every government's job is to ensure the best for its people and then and only then help others. And because gas prices have tripled/quadrupled for political reasons only, I consider this a failure of all EU governments towards their citizens.
- Kim_Bruning 3y ago
  Every governments' first job before all else is to continue to exist. -- A government that ceases to exist (eg. by being conquered) fails to do anything at all, let alone what is best for its citizens. This is almost a tautology, because eg. try to make a "list of governments that do not exist". (see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-watchman_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-watchman_state for a view on the absolute minimal requirements for a workable state.)
  - ExoticPearTree 3y ago
    So how would the governments of Germany/France/Spain to name a few cease to exist if they import gas from Russia or Iran or whatever next baddie country you can think of?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - Kim_Bruning 3y ago
      A government's primary duty to ensure its existence is not just about surviving for one more day, but also about maintaining its strength and sovereignty so it can survive in future. By buying energy from adversaries you fund their activities against your own government. This compromises the primary duty by weakening your government in the long term.
- p_l 3y ago
  Yeah, no. Russia had been a "bad neighbour" for over two decades now. In terms of energy policy, worse than Soviet Union (there's reasonable argument that they traded on relatively stellar reputation soviets made when it came to energy supply to the West). Cheap energy is not everything, and I do not mean here some nebulous (to some) concepts of decency and honour. I mean physical and political safety of the citizens. Several EU countries border Russia. All of them have history when it comes to Russian nationalism (which coincidentally is pretty big in Russian government). And Russians aren't quiet with their saber rattling. Appeasement only results in confirming that threats work to get you to comply, after all. If anything, the current increase in combat was a wakeup call that "Wandel durch Handel" was a total failure with regards to Russia. For decades, belief in "Change through Trade" constrained possible actions to ensure safety and wellbeing of EU citizens, against belligerent who was all too happy to manipulate energy access to cause issues. Not to mention significant portion of the fossil fuels from Russia... flowed through Ukraine. So if anything, diversification from Russian gas was at most ripping the bandaid out, something that should have been initiated at latest in 2014 (when it was proposed by Poland), but it was not the first attempt to do so. Pity it took 8 year war kicking into higher gear for some to finally understand.
  - ExoticPearTree 3y ago
    Sure, diversify, but find a price similar to Russian gas, not four times more expensive and then expect citizens to bear the cost. That's my issue. It can come from the South Pole if it would cost the same or maybe 5-10% more, but not 400% more. Or, as I think it would have been even better, have citizens vote independently with their wallets. I for example, don't buy Turkish products because I think Erdogan is a-hole and a dictator. But I don't have a problem with other people buying Turkish products. So you could pass a law where citizens would have the option do deny consuming Russian gas and opt for Caspian Sea natural gas, or LNG from Qatar or whatever and pay the appropriate price. Providers would sell them gas from their preferred source and everyone would be happy.
    - wasmitnetzen 3y ago
      Politics is used for the parts where the free market doesn't produce good outcomes. You can't put a price tag on ~200 000 dead people (counting both sides). Otherwise we could just do away with the whole overhead of democracy.

Damn that one of most brain dead comments i saw in a while. Appeasement never ends well, if EU wasn't so soft on 2014 invasion, r*ssian would not dare to attack in 2022.

ExoticPearTree 3y ago

It's not about appeasement. It is about minding your own business and doing what is best for your citizens. And cheap gas is better than expensive gas, and by extension cheap energy is what is best. You can downvote me as much as you want, but every government's job is to ensure the best for its people and then and only then help others. And because gas prices have tripled/quadrupled for political reasons only, I consider this a failure of all EU governments towards their citizens.

Kim_Bruning 3y ago
Every governments' first job before all else is to continue to exist. -- A government that ceases to exist (eg. by being conquered) fails to do anything at all, let alone what is best for its citizens. This is almost a tautology, because eg. try to make a "list of governments that do not exist". (see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-watchman_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-watchman_state for a view on the absolute minimal requirements for a workable state.)
- ExoticPearTree 3y ago
  So how would the governments of Germany/France/Spain to name a few cease to exist if they import gas from Russia or Iran or whatever next baddie country you can think of?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Kim_Bruning 3y ago
    A government's primary duty to ensure its existence is not just about surviving for one more day, but also about maintaining its strength and sovereignty so it can survive in future. By buying energy from adversaries you fund their activities against your own government. This compromises the primary duty by weakening your government in the long term.
p_l 3y ago
Yeah, no. Russia had been a "bad neighbour" for over two decades now. In terms of energy policy, worse than Soviet Union (there's reasonable argument that they traded on relatively stellar reputation soviets made when it came to energy supply to the West). Cheap energy is not everything, and I do not mean here some nebulous (to some) concepts of decency and honour. I mean physical and political safety of the citizens. Several EU countries border Russia. All of them have history when it comes to Russian nationalism (which coincidentally is pretty big in Russian government). And Russians aren't quiet with their saber rattling. Appeasement only results in confirming that threats work to get you to comply, after all. If anything, the current increase in combat was a wakeup call that "Wandel durch Handel" was a total failure with regards to Russia. For decades, belief in "Change through Trade" constrained possible actions to ensure safety and wellbeing of EU citizens, against belligerent who was all too happy to manipulate energy access to cause issues. Not to mention significant portion of the fossil fuels from Russia... flowed through Ukraine. So if anything, diversification from Russian gas was at most ripping the bandaid out, something that should have been initiated at latest in 2014 (when it was proposed by Poland), but it was not the first attempt to do so. Pity it took 8 year war kicking into higher gear for some to finally understand.
- ExoticPearTree 3y ago
  Sure, diversify, but find a price similar to Russian gas, not four times more expensive and then expect citizens to bear the cost. That's my issue. It can come from the South Pole if it would cost the same or maybe 5-10% more, but not 400% more. Or, as I think it would have been even better, have citizens vote independently with their wallets. I for example, don't buy Turkish products because I think Erdogan is a-hole and a dictator. But I don't have a problem with other people buying Turkish products. So you could pass a law where citizens would have the option do deny consuming Russian gas and opt for Caspian Sea natural gas, or LNG from Qatar or whatever and pay the appropriate price. Providers would sell them gas from their preferred source and everyone would be happy.
  - wasmitnetzen 3y ago
    Politics is used for the parts where the free market doesn't produce good outcomes. You can't put a price tag on ~200 000 dead people (counting both sides). Otherwise we could just do away with the whole overhead of democracy.