7 ms·

I for example do not understand how it can be possible that Ukraine transports Russian gas on its pipeline network. Not sure if that's still the case though.

by rho4 1y ago

lifestyleguru 1y ago
Everyone involved and decisive are neighbours living in Dubai.
- jiggawatts 1y ago
  You're thinking of HAMAS and co in Qatar.
  - lifestyleguru 1y ago
    Applies to both conflicts apparently.
Cthulhu_ 1y ago
They stopped on January 1st 2025 when the contract with Gazprom signed in 2019 expired, costing Gazprom / Russia an estimated $5bn / year: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/01/business/ukraine-russia-gas-eu-halted-hnk-intl/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/01/business/ukraine-russia-g... It's a complicated one, but legally it's a civil contract; if the Ukrainian government decided to stop the gas flowing, both Gazprom and all the companies "downstream" would be in their rights to sue for breach of contract and/or causing gas shortages, costing the Ukrainian government billions. And you could wonder why they signed the contract anyway given Russia invaded/annexed Crimea 5 years prior, but, it's a lot of money, and at the time it was still considered a civil contract I presume.
- blackhaz 1y ago
  I am completely naive,l as I don't understand much in contracts, but wouldn't war effectively nullify those contracts? I mean, if a large proportion of your adversary's economy hangs by a simple piece of paper, I'd expect one to suggest them to go and wipe themselves with it.
  - awesome_dude 1y ago
    I'm speculating.. but... The Ukraine needed (and continues to need) support from the buyers of that gas - the EU The war has been going long enough, and the Ukrainian government would have made it very clear that thy would not be renewing the contract.. meaning that the EU had a chance to get their energy via some other route.
  - cdogl 1y ago
    I don’t think you are naive - it’s counter-intuitive. The political context is important: Ukraine is incentivised to portraying itself as a country that respects international law and norms. The fact of life is that this includes respecting civil contracts made in good faith. This moral high ground has a cost.
    - eru 1y ago
      > This moral high ground has a cost. Btw, occupying the moral high ground even when it has a cost, sends a strong signal that you will also be trustworthy in the future, and not just when it's convenient. Ie sometimes the cost is the point. Just like the peacock's fancy tail needs to be biologically expensive to work.
  - jcattle 1y ago
    Sure. War also makes Nordstream II a legitimate military target. You still have to weigh if it is worth it to risk your good relations with your allies over sabotaging infrastructure which is important for their national security.
  - roenxi 1y ago
    It doesn't take a war to do that, in peacetime governments can also manufacture reasons to just not do things - up to and including just changing the law. The main defence against that is that if they are going to do that later on they simply won't sign up for the deal, so we'd expect a government to honour anything they sign on with. I'd imagine the logic goes something like Ukraine believes they are benefiting and Russia is too, but they aren't sure which side is gaining more from the movement of gas through Ukraine (which, note, in real terms is supporting the economies that are arming Ukraine). In that situation, the obvious thing to do is just let things play out as contracted. If it was obvious that Russia was gaining a lot more from the deal than they are then they'd just stop.
- XorNot 1y ago
  Also because the gas itself went to customers outside Ukraine. Ultimately the general public is capricious in its beliefs: cutting the gas off and causing energy prices to spike in Europe means someone will call for the head of whoever's nearest to blame. Ukraine also was deliberately not targeting Russian oil assets earlier at the request of the US for economic reasons - though I'd say recent American political history shows what a mistake that is.
  - awesome_dude 1y ago
    > Ukraine also was deliberately not targeting Russian oil assets earlier at the request of the US for economic reasons - though I'd say recent American political history shows what a mistake that is. There's been a change in the administration (and therefore strategy) of the USA, which changed the way the game was being played. I think that (almost) everyone that has actual skin in that particular game also knows that none of the agreements that any of them make are reliable for a long term (I saw recently that the Ukranians gave up the Nukes they had at the behest of the US government, and on the.. I don't know if it was explicit, implicit, or just assumed.. understanding that the USA would provide some sort of security guarantee (which, of course, has never materialised)
    - pydry 1y ago
      Ukraine gave up its nukes in the same sense that Germany would "give up its [American] nukes" if it exited NATO. They also had about as much latitude to keep those nukes as Germany would. Some people act like Ukraine owned and controlled the nukes and had a meaningful choice. They never did. It wasnt given security guarantees either, it was given a promise that its independence wouldnt be infringed upon in a memorandum (not in a treaty). As the Americans stated themselves in 2013 when they violated their promises within the Budapest memorandum, that memorandum wasnt legally binding. It was treated like toilet paper first by the Americans in 2014 and subsequently the Russians in 2014.
      - awesome_dude 1y ago
        When you edit your response, can you do so by clearly labeling your changes.
scyzoryk_xyz 1y ago
I believe it's in part due to the actual way the pipelines work - gas isn't simply piped into one end and out the other like fluid or switched on and off like energy systems. Switching it off on one end would require storing it somewhere at the source and switching it off on the other could destroy the actual piping. You can't just "take" it from one and easily transfer it to another customer. AFAIK it's the engineering but that other comment about neighhbors in Dubai is yeah
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
contrarian1234 1y ago
Nor do I understand how Europe still buys gas from Russia.. in effect funding and prolonging the war. They seem to be playing both sides. Saying how horrible the Russian regime is, while directly giving it more money. And then giving weapons to Ukraine.. It seems completely morally bankrupt... If instead of Russia it was ISIS, would they still send money just so they have cheap gas? Like at what point would they stop? Do the Russians need to be impaling babies and goosestepping through Red Square? I also don't understand why Ukrainians don't feel a deep sense of betrayal about this
- maccard 1y ago
  > Nor do I understand how Europe still buys gas from Russia Because the alternative isn't buying gas from somewhere else, it's not buying the gas. This turns a foreign war into a major major domestic issue.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - contrarian1234 1y ago
    I'd be curious to hear what Europeans actually think of it on the ground. Is it not a major domestic issue that your governments are funding a genocidal regime? Do people just kinda pretend it's not happening b/c it's inconvenient to talk about? Just kinda blush, say sorry, and carry on? I don't really understand the psychology of it. Are people for instance actively trying to use less gas in their personal lives?
    - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
      edited, not feeding the troll
      - jeltz 1y ago
        Look at the name, he is likely trolling people.
mamonster 1y ago
1) Because the transport fee that Gazprom used to pay to Ukraine was one of the safest rents in the (very dysfunctional) Ukrainian economy(the other being the Odessa port). If you really want to go that far back, the gas dispute in 2008-2009 is when things really started going bad between Russia and Ukraine. 2) Because this gas was needed in Europe. I would go as far as to say that if there is any peace in Ukraine within the next few years then Ukraine will probably demand that if any gas goes from Russia to Europe it would go through Ukraine.
t1E9mE7JTRjf 1y ago
Or how European countries have bankrolled Russia's invasion with billions per year (100b since the war started) in payments for gas. While paying lip service to optics announcing ever harsher sanctions - like freezing one or two bank accounts of irrelevant family friends of Putin. Sadly war means western countries will keep printing money, while also funding the military industrial complex. For some, this is a goal.
scyzoryk_xyz 1y ago
Something worth adding and reading about is how the very existence of the European-Russian gas relationship has it's roots in German 70's and 80's realpolitik initiative that led to the pipes-for-gas contracts between Germany and the USSR. Neither the USSR not Russia had the internal industrial capacity to build this kind of infrastructure to begin with. The belief was that "they" would become reliant on "us". Who could predict that "they" would want to abuse "us"?

I for example do not understand how it can be possible that Ukraine transports Russian gas on its pipeline network. Not sure if that's still the case though.

by rho4 1y ago

I for example do not understand how it can be possible that Ukraine transports Russian gas on its pipeline network. Not sure if that's still the case though.

lifestyleguru 1y ago

Everyone involved and decisive are neighbours living in Dubai.

jiggawatts 1y ago
You're thinking of HAMAS and co in Qatar.
- lifestyleguru 1y ago
  Applies to both conflicts apparently.

Cthulhu_ 1y ago

They stopped on January 1st 2025 when the contract with Gazprom signed in 2019 expired, costing Gazprom / Russia an estimated $5bn / year: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/01/business/ukraine-russia-gas-eu-halted-hnk-intl/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/01/business/ukraine-russia-g... It's a complicated one, but legally it's a civil contract; if the Ukrainian government decided to stop the gas flowing, both Gazprom and all the companies "downstream" would be in their rights to sue for breach of contract and/or causing gas shortages, costing the Ukrainian government billions. And you could wonder why they signed the contract anyway given Russia invaded/annexed Crimea 5 years prior, but, it's a lot of money, and at the time it was still considered a civil contract I presume.

blackhaz 1y ago
I am completely naive,l as I don't understand much in contracts, but wouldn't war effectively nullify those contracts? I mean, if a large proportion of your adversary's economy hangs by a simple piece of paper, I'd expect one to suggest them to go and wipe themselves with it.
- awesome_dude 1y ago
  I'm speculating.. but... The Ukraine needed (and continues to need) support from the buyers of that gas - the EU The war has been going long enough, and the Ukrainian government would have made it very clear that thy would not be renewing the contract.. meaning that the EU had a chance to get their energy via some other route.
- cdogl 1y ago
  I don’t think you are naive - it’s counter-intuitive. The political context is important: Ukraine is incentivised to portraying itself as a country that respects international law and norms. The fact of life is that this includes respecting civil contracts made in good faith. This moral high ground has a cost.
  - eru 1y ago
    > This moral high ground has a cost. Btw, occupying the moral high ground even when it has a cost, sends a strong signal that you will also be trustworthy in the future, and not just when it's convenient. Ie sometimes the cost is the point. Just like the peacock's fancy tail needs to be biologically expensive to work.
- jcattle 1y ago
  Sure. War also makes Nordstream II a legitimate military target. You still have to weigh if it is worth it to risk your good relations with your allies over sabotaging infrastructure which is important for their national security.
- roenxi 1y ago
  It doesn't take a war to do that, in peacetime governments can also manufacture reasons to just not do things - up to and including just changing the law. The main defence against that is that if they are going to do that later on they simply won't sign up for the deal, so we'd expect a government to honour anything they sign on with. I'd imagine the logic goes something like Ukraine believes they are benefiting and Russia is too, but they aren't sure which side is gaining more from the movement of gas through Ukraine (which, note, in real terms is supporting the economies that are arming Ukraine). In that situation, the obvious thing to do is just let things play out as contracted. If it was obvious that Russia was gaining a lot more from the deal than they are then they'd just stop.
XorNot 1y ago
Also because the gas itself went to customers outside Ukraine. Ultimately the general public is capricious in its beliefs: cutting the gas off and causing energy prices to spike in Europe means someone will call for the head of whoever's nearest to blame. Ukraine also was deliberately not targeting Russian oil assets earlier at the request of the US for economic reasons - though I'd say recent American political history shows what a mistake that is.
- awesome_dude 1y ago
  > Ukraine also was deliberately not targeting Russian oil assets earlier at the request of the US for economic reasons - though I'd say recent American political history shows what a mistake that is. There's been a change in the administration (and therefore strategy) of the USA, which changed the way the game was being played. I think that (almost) everyone that has actual skin in that particular game also knows that none of the agreements that any of them make are reliable for a long term (I saw recently that the Ukranians gave up the Nukes they had at the behest of the US government, and on the.. I don't know if it was explicit, implicit, or just assumed.. understanding that the USA would provide some sort of security guarantee (which, of course, has never materialised)
  - pydry 1y ago
    Ukraine gave up its nukes in the same sense that Germany would "give up its [American] nukes" if it exited NATO. They also had about as much latitude to keep those nukes as Germany would. Some people act like Ukraine owned and controlled the nukes and had a meaningful choice. They never did. It wasnt given security guarantees either, it was given a promise that its independence wouldnt be infringed upon in a memorandum (not in a treaty). As the Americans stated themselves in 2013 when they violated their promises within the Budapest memorandum, that memorandum wasnt legally binding. It was treated like toilet paper first by the Americans in 2014 and subsequently the Russians in 2014.
    - awesome_dude 1y ago
      When you edit your response, can you do so by clearly labeling your changes.

scyzoryk_xyz 1y ago

I believe it's in part due to the actual way the pipelines work - gas isn't simply piped into one end and out the other like fluid or switched on and off like energy systems. Switching it off on one end would require storing it somewhere at the source and switching it off on the other could destroy the actual piping. You can't just "take" it from one and easily transfer it to another customer. AFAIK it's the engineering but that other comment about neighhbors in Dubai is yeah

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

contrarian1234 1y ago

Nor do I understand how Europe still buys gas from Russia.. in effect funding and prolonging the war. They seem to be playing both sides. Saying how horrible the Russian regime is, while directly giving it more money. And then giving weapons to Ukraine.. It seems completely morally bankrupt... If instead of Russia it was ISIS, would they still send money just so they have cheap gas? Like at what point would they stop? Do the Russians need to be impaling babies and goosestepping through Red Square? I also don't understand why Ukrainians don't feel a deep sense of betrayal about this

maccard 1y ago
> Nor do I understand how Europe still buys gas from Russia Because the alternative isn't buying gas from somewhere else, it's not buying the gas. This turns a foreign war into a major major domestic issue.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- contrarian1234 1y ago
  I'd be curious to hear what Europeans actually think of it on the ground. Is it not a major domestic issue that your governments are funding a genocidal regime? Do people just kinda pretend it's not happening b/c it's inconvenient to talk about? Just kinda blush, say sorry, and carry on? I don't really understand the psychology of it. Are people for instance actively trying to use less gas in their personal lives?
  - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
    edited, not feeding the troll
    - jeltz 1y ago
      Look at the name, he is likely trolling people.

mamonster 1y ago

1) Because the transport fee that Gazprom used to pay to Ukraine was one of the safest rents in the (very dysfunctional) Ukrainian economy(the other being the Odessa port). If you really want to go that far back, the gas dispute in 2008-2009 is when things really started going bad between Russia and Ukraine. 2) Because this gas was needed in Europe. I would go as far as to say that if there is any peace in Ukraine within the next few years then Ukraine will probably demand that if any gas goes from Russia to Europe it would go through Ukraine.

t1E9mE7JTRjf 1y ago

Or how European countries have bankrolled Russia's invasion with billions per year (100b since the war started) in payments for gas. While paying lip service to optics announcing ever harsher sanctions - like freezing one or two bank accounts of irrelevant family friends of Putin. Sadly war means western countries will keep printing money, while also funding the military industrial complex. For some, this is a goal.

scyzoryk_xyz 1y ago

Something worth adding and reading about is how the very existence of the European-Russian gas relationship has it's roots in German 70's and 80's realpolitik initiative that led to the pipes-for-gas contracts between Germany and the USSR. Neither the USSR not Russia had the internal industrial capacity to build this kind of infrastructure to begin with. The belief was that "they" would become reliant on "us". Who could predict that "they" would want to abuse "us"?