4 ms·

> what’s to lose now? The natural gas supply among other things. Europe has made itself first dependent on Russia and then on the US for the basic survival of

> what’s to lose now? The natural gas supply among other things. Europe has made itself first dependent on Russia and then on the US for the basic survival of its population.

ivan_gammel 1y ago
You underestimate how fast Europe in crisis can reactivate direct imports from Russia. Trump pushing for peace doesn’t understand that it will also open the way for lifting sanctions on Russian energy sector. If he succeeds but alienates Europe, that will inevitably happen. We are back in the age of realpolitik.
- marcinzm 1y ago
  Handing over a loaded gun pointed at your head from one dictator to another is hardly a wining strategy. You also underestimate how much Russia and the US are likely colluding.
- mytailorisrich 1y ago
  Realpolitik would be for Europe to exploit its shale gas reserves instead of banning doing so. Yes, we need to move away from fossil fuels but the reality is that we are still dependent on them so we may as well look at strategic independence and economic gains and produce what we can ourselves.
  - ivan_gammel 1y ago
    That is not a viable option for us if we need full replacement. Strategic independence will remain a goal, but in the meantime we need whatever works. Let Trump and Putin compete for access to European energy market.
    - mytailorisrich 1y ago
      It is a viable option. It might not cover all our needs (I don't know) but that does not mean we should not minimise imports and maximise domestic production.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - m000 1y ago
    Realpolitik would be for Europe to understand that geography isn't going to change. Russia will always be your next-door neighbour. USA will always be an ocean away. Also, Putin is not immortal. So, your long game should be to forge amicable relations with your next-door neighbour, rather betting everything in your relationship with your manipulative friend on the other side of the pond. In the meantime, you should also become self-dependent.
    - azmodeus 1y ago
      Realpolitik would be to arm yourself and project your influence like your big brothers are doing next door and across the pond. Russia would love to regain the European land the Soviet Union lost.
      - m000 1y ago
        Your suggestions are far off from realpolitik. This is the recipe followed post-WW1, which brought us WW2. Europe itself is the proof that cooperation and good relationship among neighbours are the policies that bring peace and prosperity. And Putin is not an idiot to attempt expansion to lands with no ethnic-russian population. Such thing is clearly not feasible without the power structures of the former USSR.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        FirmwareBurner 1y ago
        WW2 was brought by the humiliation and starvation of the German people by the European winners and by their own politicians, and Hitler easily capitalized on that making his rise to power a slam dunk. People like to think that if they would have assassinated Hitler early on, WW2 wouldn't have happened, but that's wrong. That would have just left the power vacuum empty for someone else to capitalize on the German populations' grievances and start the war. The history lesson is to make sure the masses of people are taken care of by their leaders, not to start censoring, imprisoning or assassinating political opponents who capitalize on the peoples' unhappiness.
  - wolvesechoes 1y ago
    Realpolitik would be to recognize that there is no such political actor as Europe.
- terminalshort 1y ago
  And you think that Russia is a better option? I hope the EU isn't that dumb, but it's hard to underestimate them.
  - ivan_gammel 1y ago
    It is not a better option. It’s the way to have competition among suppliers.
    - marcinzm 1y ago
      If you think Putin and Trump will compete versus simply colluding against Europe then you're really delusional.
      - terminalshort 1y ago
        I see US made weapons destroying Russian assets in Ukraine every day. I see US troops facing off against Russia in Poland and the Baltics. This is a nonsense conspiracy theory.
    - terminalshort 1y ago
      One of those suppliers demanding you don't tax and censor their online services. The other is pointing weapons (that they buy with your money) at you. There is a time for market competition, but this ain't it. Now if you were suggesting developing domestic energy supplies, that would be a different story.
      - ivan_gammel 1y ago
        Please don’t expect me writing a full political program here elaborating all aspects of foreign and energy policy. It’s a forum. Domestic energy supplies won’t come faster than imports from existing sources. They are imperative but need time.
  - spwa4 1y ago
    You don't understand. The situation in Europe is: the left has failed, and broken into pieces that are currently mostly still in a few parties, but those are ready to shatter into 100, at which point ... the extreme right has 35% of the vote, and the center parties has all but broken down. That means the moderate right (think laissez-faire pro-immigration pro-business, the only remaining other voting bloc) and extreme right (hate based parties) control, easily, 50% of the vote. They are not currently allied but the problem is that a shattered left is not something the right (or anyone) can work with. If the left fully shatters, the right will be forced to join the extreme right. So right now, it takes essentially EVERY small insignificant party cooperating not to hand EU countries to the extreme right (yes, in Germany there's more margin, in the Netherlands less, France is on the brink, ...) That makes your "dumb" not dumb but a serious catch-22. Any compromise that makes ANY party that has 5% of the vote walk out is a total non-starter, because one vote of non-confidence and "hitler gets elected again" so to speak.
FirmwareBurner 1y ago
Man, if only humans could have invented splitting of the atom, it might have made a nice energy source, especially for countries with low oil and gas reserves.
verzali 1y ago
Europe is hardly dependent on the US for gas. Russia still supplies more gas than the US does, and even when the current US and Russian supplies are combined they are less than the total Russian supply in 2021. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/where-does-the-eu-s-gas-come-from/ https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/where-does-t...
- marcinzm 1y ago
  I understand how economics function. If you drop supply 10% for a basic necessity then prices will go up by much more than 10%. You don't need to stop something, just reduce it enough to drive prices way up to the point where people can't afford them.
  - verzali 1y ago
    Gas is stored over many months and then mostly used in the winter. So you cannot quickly impact consumer prices in the way you suggest. Supplies in general are now more diversified and flexible, so any supplier can be replaced more easily - LNG by ship is far easier to replace than gas that relies on pipelines.

> what’s to lose now? The natural gas supply among other things. Europe has made itself first dependent on Russia and then on the US for the basic survival of its population.

ivan_gammel 1y ago

You underestimate how fast Europe in crisis can reactivate direct imports from Russia. Trump pushing for peace doesn’t understand that it will also open the way for lifting sanctions on Russian energy sector. If he succeeds but alienates Europe, that will inevitably happen. We are back in the age of realpolitik.

marcinzm 1y ago
Handing over a loaded gun pointed at your head from one dictator to another is hardly a wining strategy. You also underestimate how much Russia and the US are likely colluding.
mytailorisrich 1y ago
Realpolitik would be for Europe to exploit its shale gas reserves instead of banning doing so. Yes, we need to move away from fossil fuels but the reality is that we are still dependent on them so we may as well look at strategic independence and economic gains and produce what we can ourselves.
- ivan_gammel 1y ago
  That is not a viable option for us if we need full replacement. Strategic independence will remain a goal, but in the meantime we need whatever works. Let Trump and Putin compete for access to European energy market.
  - mytailorisrich 1y ago
    It is a viable option. It might not cover all our needs (I don't know) but that does not mean we should not minimise imports and maximise domestic production.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- m000 1y ago
  Realpolitik would be for Europe to understand that geography isn't going to change. Russia will always be your next-door neighbour. USA will always be an ocean away. Also, Putin is not immortal. So, your long game should be to forge amicable relations with your next-door neighbour, rather betting everything in your relationship with your manipulative friend on the other side of the pond. In the meantime, you should also become self-dependent.
  - azmodeus 1y ago
    Realpolitik would be to arm yourself and project your influence like your big brothers are doing next door and across the pond. Russia would love to regain the European land the Soviet Union lost.
    - m000 1y ago
      Your suggestions are far off from realpolitik. This is the recipe followed post-WW1, which brought us WW2. Europe itself is the proof that cooperation and good relationship among neighbours are the policies that bring peace and prosperity. And Putin is not an idiot to attempt expansion to lands with no ethnic-russian population. Such thing is clearly not feasible without the power structures of the former USSR.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
        WW2 was brought by the humiliation and starvation of the German people by the European winners and by their own politicians, and Hitler easily capitalized on that making his rise to power a slam dunk. People like to think that if they would have assassinated Hitler early on, WW2 wouldn't have happened, but that's wrong. That would have just left the power vacuum empty for someone else to capitalize on the German populations' grievances and start the war. The history lesson is to make sure the masses of people are taken care of by their leaders, not to start censoring, imprisoning or assassinating political opponents who capitalize on the peoples' unhappiness.
- wolvesechoes 1y ago
  Realpolitik would be to recognize that there is no such political actor as Europe.
terminalshort 1y ago
And you think that Russia is a better option? I hope the EU isn't that dumb, but it's hard to underestimate them.
- ivan_gammel 1y ago
  It is not a better option. It’s the way to have competition among suppliers.
  - marcinzm 1y ago
    If you think Putin and Trump will compete versus simply colluding against Europe then you're really delusional.
    - terminalshort 1y ago
      I see US made weapons destroying Russian assets in Ukraine every day. I see US troops facing off against Russia in Poland and the Baltics. This is a nonsense conspiracy theory.
  - terminalshort 1y ago
    One of those suppliers demanding you don't tax and censor their online services. The other is pointing weapons (that they buy with your money) at you. There is a time for market competition, but this ain't it. Now if you were suggesting developing domestic energy supplies, that would be a different story.
    - ivan_gammel 1y ago
      Please don’t expect me writing a full political program here elaborating all aspects of foreign and energy policy. It’s a forum. Domestic energy supplies won’t come faster than imports from existing sources. They are imperative but need time.
- spwa4 1y ago
  You don't understand. The situation in Europe is: the left has failed, and broken into pieces that are currently mostly still in a few parties, but those are ready to shatter into 100, at which point ... the extreme right has 35% of the vote, and the center parties has all but broken down. That means the moderate right (think laissez-faire pro-immigration pro-business, the only remaining other voting bloc) and extreme right (hate based parties) control, easily, 50% of the vote. They are not currently allied but the problem is that a shattered left is not something the right (or anyone) can work with. If the left fully shatters, the right will be forced to join the extreme right. So right now, it takes essentially EVERY small insignificant party cooperating not to hand EU countries to the extreme right (yes, in Germany there's more margin, in the Netherlands less, France is on the brink, ...) That makes your "dumb" not dumb but a serious catch-22. Any compromise that makes ANY party that has 5% of the vote walk out is a total non-starter, because one vote of non-confidence and "hitler gets elected again" so to speak.

FirmwareBurner 1y ago

Man, if only humans could have invented splitting of the atom, it might have made a nice energy source, especially for countries with low oil and gas reserves.

verzali 1y ago

Europe is hardly dependent on the US for gas. Russia still supplies more gas than the US does, and even when the current US and Russian supplies are combined they are less than the total Russian supply in 2021. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/where-does-the-eu-s-gas-come-from/ https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/where-does-t...

marcinzm 1y ago
I understand how economics function. If you drop supply 10% for a basic necessity then prices will go up by much more than 10%. You don't need to stop something, just reduce it enough to drive prices way up to the point where people can't afford them.
- verzali 1y ago
  Gas is stored over many months and then mostly used in the winter. So you cannot quickly impact consumer prices in the way you suggest. Supplies in general are now more diversified and flexible, so any supplier can be replaced more easily - LNG by ship is far easier to replace than gas that relies on pipelines.