3 ms·

You can see data on US LNG imports to the EU here. [1] After the invasion they more than tripled with the US now accounting for more than 58% of EU imports. Gas

You can see data on US LNG imports to the EU here. [1] After the invasion they more than tripled with the US now accounting for more than 58% of EU imports. Gas prices are up more than 10x relative to their lowest lowest in the 2020 before the war. [2] The EU was most certainly a growth market, if Russian supplies to the EU could be disrupted. I think the threat from Russia is questionable. This war was predictable after 2014, much in the same way that an eventual war with Moldova over Transnistria seems quite predictable today. However, war with e.g. Germany seems entirely nonsensical. But let's just assume there is a threat for the sake of discussion. How does escalating this conflict, most recently with highly provocative attacks explicitly targeting civilian infrastructure [3], aim to reduce such? And how would aiming for reconciliation and de-escalation not be a much more reasonable way to achieve such? Even if we again assume reconciliation is not possible, which is also very questionable, you end up with the point that [3] not only serves no viable military purpose, but actively escalates the conflict in a likely self destructive way. Ukraine's attacks made some catchy headlines in the information war, but now they've been predictably been met in kind, putting Ukrainians in an even worse situation, increasing food scarcity and such, all with winter on the horizon. I haven't seen so many headlines about that, however. Go figure. Are these escalations making the EU more or less safe? US interests in Europe are ensuring we maintain the dominant force in their geopolitical positioning. I think that is probably now more true than ever before. The EU showed some basic degree of self interest and defiance by staying out of Iran, but I'd hope and assume that would also be the case even if the US had a more reasonable President. That was just a particularly stupid war to start. Curiously, something Trump himself acknowledged before becoming president. [1] - https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_move_poe2_a_epg0_eng_mmcf_a.htm https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_move_poe2_a_epg0_eng_mmcf_a.h... [2] - https://www.elexys.be/en/insights/eex-ttf-gas-spot https://www.elexys.be/en/insights/eex-ttf-gas-spot [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildberries#Ukrainian_drone_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildberries#Ukrainian_drone_at...

ben_w 2mo ago
> You can see data on US LNG imports to the EU here. [1] After the invasion they more than tripled with the US now accounting for more than 58% of EU imports. Gas prices are up more than 10x relative to their lowest lowest in the 2020 before the war. [2] The EU was most certainly a growth market, if Russian supplies to the EU could be disrupted. Pointing at the wrong thing: consider not EU imports but US exports, which went from 3,865,643 in 2022 to 4,343,027 in 2023. Those gas prices surged very quickly, but the spike was very short-lived. The change in longer-term averages was much smaller than the spike; from your own link, the US total from 2020-2025, in dollars per thousand cubic feet: 5.64, 7.62, 12.24, 7.57, 6.41, 7.92. > However, war with e.g. Germany seems entirely nonsensical. To us (I mean, their troops are bogged down within a few tens of kilometres of their own borders), but the media rhetoric is that kind of revanchism. > But let's just assume there is a threat for the sake of discussion. How does escalating this conflict, …, aim to reduce such? And how would aiming for reconciliation and de-escalation not be a much more reasonable way to achieve such? First, the soft-touch approach was already tried with Crimea. Second, consider Russia's stated aims with their "special military operation", which they still do not officially call a war. They invaded with words translated as "de-Nazification", but their use of the term means something very different to how it is understood in the west: ~"the enemy of Moscow". Consider that Ukraine was not actually threat, yet they invaded anyway under the pretence that they might at some unspecified time in the future join NATO: the Russian leadership today (not always) sees NATO as a threat, treats NATO membership as being a signal of being in the sphere of influence of the USA rather than voluntary mutual self-defence. Putin does not recognise the sovereignty of any nation that is not a "great power", regards Ukrainian nationality as fiction. And third, we know that civilians in the occupied territories get conscripted and sent into war against the rest of Ukraine. Documented in Crimea as well as the more recently occupied parts Ukraine. So, the more Ukraine loses, the more of its own people and infrastructure becomes the tool of the invading forces to take more. Losing all of Ukraine means that all of Ukraine gets pointed at wherever Putin wants Russia to invade next. > explicitly targeting civilian infrastructure [3], > you end up with the point that [3] not only serves no viable military purpose, Dual-use. It's not great that it is a target, but I think Amazon warehouses would probably get targeted similarly if e.g. the US tries this with Canada, given https://www.amazon.com/s?k=bullet+proof+vest+mens https://www.amazon.com/s?k=bullet+proof+vest+mens (no comment if any of this is good for more than cosplay, I wouldn't know). (Edit: But also, consider that strikes by Ukraine against targets inside Russia were restricted by the Biden administration. The end of direct support by the USA coincided with Ukraine feeling free to make such attacks, so to the extent that the US can be seen as supporting Ukraine in this conflict, it was the exact force of moderation, holding Ukraine back, as is now called for.) > putting Ukrainians in an even worse situation, increasing food scarcity and such, all with winter on the horizon Not really "worse": in this regard they are in a bad position every winter, because Russia has never had a problem attacking Ukrainian food, power, or other civilian assets. Also, these strikes against Wildberries make it much harder for civilians to directly supply their conscripted families (and those civilians kinda have to, given the military often doesn't bother with even the basics to the extent a new Russian soldier's average life expectancy on the front line is measured in minutes). > US interests in Europe are ensuring we maintain the dominant force in their geopolitical positioning. I think that is probably now more true than ever before. If we are clear "US interests" != "Trump's personal interest", yes. Trump is throwing away that position of dominant force in European geopolitical positioning.
- somenameforme 2mo ago
  On gas prices, US volume, relative to 2020, is up by 120%, and it's being sold for 40% more. That's less than the spike, but it's still the US relentlessly milking the EU for everything she's worth, all thanks to severing Russian and EU gas relations. There was never any soft touch approach with Crimea. The territory annexation was never recognized in spite of there being little doubt it was the will of the people there. Just prior to the invasion, Ukraine had passed a measure seeking to 'de-occupy' Ukraine using all measures, including military. [1] The West was actively indulging of such bravado. --- I think you know the dual use arguments around Wildberries are farcical. Ukrainian propaganda didn't even try to pretend it would have a military effect, but instead cheered about trying to make life for the average Russian less comfortable. The exact phrase used in most Western messaging was "bring the war home" along with some broader argument of economic damage. Why they would want to make that a goal and can't see the mirror response incoming, is quite stupefying. Why the US/EU indulge such things is even more stupefying. Russia in the past had not been directly targeting civilian infrastructure being used for civilian purposes. What damage had happened was a mixture of Ukrainian anti-air/ECM weaponry resulting in downed drones/missiles detonating on civilian infrastructure, or targeting of civilian infrastructure that was being used for overtly military purposes. You could see things like video of a 'shopping center' being targeted, followed by large immediate and then smaller ongoing secondary detonations - it was storing weapons. Completely destroying civilian infrastructure, on a very wide scale, is not difficult, because such tends to be completely unfortified and unguarded - the exact reason Ukraine was able to destroy the Wildberries facilities so easily. And Ukraine has started an escalation where this is now exactly what is happening in Ukraine as well. I don't know what the outcome of this will be, but this is not, by any sort of logic, making Europe safer or Russia less of a threat. It's also likely to result in a much weaker Ukraine after all is said and done. --- As for the US - EU. The EU is now completely dependent upon the US for both military and energy. In its current state the EU lacks the ability to be an independent power, and they have tied themselves to the US to an unprecedented degree while also accepting an unprecedented degree of abuse from the US. You might argue I should say Trump, and not the US, but watch - the DNC will win 2028, and the tariffs will continue until morale improves. [1] - https://ppu.gov.ua/en/press-center/today-president-of-ukraine-volodymyr-zelenskyy-signed-decree-117-2021-of-march-24-2021-on-the-strategy-of-de-occupation-and-reintegration-of-the-temporarily-occupied-territory-of-the-autonomous-republ/ https://ppu.gov.ua/en/press-center/today-president-of-ukrain...

ben_w 2mo ago

> You can see data on US LNG imports to the EU here. [1] After the invasion they more than tripled with the US now accounting for more than 58% of EU imports. Gas prices are up more than 10x relative to their lowest lowest in the 2020 before the war. [2] The EU was most certainly a growth market, if Russian supplies to the EU could be disrupted. Pointing at the wrong thing: consider not EU imports but US exports, which went from 3,865,643 in 2022 to 4,343,027 in 2023. Those gas prices surged very quickly, but the spike was very short-lived. The change in longer-term averages was much smaller than the spike; from your own link, the US total from 2020-2025, in dollars per thousand cubic feet: 5.64, 7.62, 12.24, 7.57, 6.41, 7.92. > However, war with e.g. Germany seems entirely nonsensical. To us (I mean, their troops are bogged down within a few tens of kilometres of their own borders), but the media rhetoric is that kind of revanchism. > But let's just assume there is a threat for the sake of discussion. How does escalating this conflict, …, aim to reduce such? And how would aiming for reconciliation and de-escalation not be a much more reasonable way to achieve such? First, the soft-touch approach was already tried with Crimea. Second, consider Russia's stated aims with their "special military operation", which they still do not officially call a war. They invaded with words translated as "de-Nazification", but their use of the term means something very different to how it is understood in the west: ~"the enemy of Moscow". Consider that Ukraine was not actually threat, yet they invaded anyway under the pretence that they might at some unspecified time in the future join NATO: the Russian leadership today (not always) sees NATO as a threat, treats NATO membership as being a signal of being in the sphere of influence of the USA rather than voluntary mutual self-defence. Putin does not recognise the sovereignty of any nation that is not a "great power", regards Ukrainian nationality as fiction. And third, we know that civilians in the occupied territories get conscripted and sent into war against the rest of Ukraine. Documented in Crimea as well as the more recently occupied parts Ukraine. So, the more Ukraine loses, the more of its own people and infrastructure becomes the tool of the invading forces to take more. Losing all of Ukraine means that all of Ukraine gets pointed at wherever Putin wants Russia to invade next. > explicitly targeting civilian infrastructure [3], > you end up with the point that [3] not only serves no viable military purpose, Dual-use. It's not great that it is a target, but I think Amazon warehouses would probably get targeted similarly if e.g. the US tries this with Canada, given https://www.amazon.com/s?k=bullet+proof+vest+mens https://www.amazon.com/s?k=bullet+proof+vest+mens (no comment if any of this is good for more than cosplay, I wouldn't know). (Edit: But also, consider that strikes by Ukraine against targets inside Russia were restricted by the Biden administration. The end of direct support by the USA coincided with Ukraine feeling free to make such attacks, so to the extent that the US can be seen as supporting Ukraine in this conflict, it was the exact force of moderation, holding Ukraine back, as is now called for.) > putting Ukrainians in an even worse situation, increasing food scarcity and such, all with winter on the horizon Not really "worse": in this regard they are in a bad position every winter, because Russia has never had a problem attacking Ukrainian food, power, or other civilian assets. Also, these strikes against Wildberries make it much harder for civilians to directly supply their conscripted families (and those civilians kinda have to, given the military often doesn't bother with even the basics to the extent a new Russian soldier's average life expectancy on the front line is measured in minutes). > US interests in Europe are ensuring we maintain the dominant force in their geopolitical positioning. I think that is probably now more true than ever before. If we are clear "US interests" != "Trump's personal interest", yes. Trump is throwing away that position of dominant force in European geopolitical positioning.

somenameforme 2mo ago
On gas prices, US volume, relative to 2020, is up by 120%, and it's being sold for 40% more. That's less than the spike, but it's still the US relentlessly milking the EU for everything she's worth, all thanks to severing Russian and EU gas relations. There was never any soft touch approach with Crimea. The territory annexation was never recognized in spite of there being little doubt it was the will of the people there. Just prior to the invasion, Ukraine had passed a measure seeking to 'de-occupy' Ukraine using all measures, including military. [1] The West was actively indulging of such bravado. --- I think you know the dual use arguments around Wildberries are farcical. Ukrainian propaganda didn't even try to pretend it would have a military effect, but instead cheered about trying to make life for the average Russian less comfortable. The exact phrase used in most Western messaging was "bring the war home" along with some broader argument of economic damage. Why they would want to make that a goal and can't see the mirror response incoming, is quite stupefying. Why the US/EU indulge such things is even more stupefying. Russia in the past had not been directly targeting civilian infrastructure being used for civilian purposes. What damage had happened was a mixture of Ukrainian anti-air/ECM weaponry resulting in downed drones/missiles detonating on civilian infrastructure, or targeting of civilian infrastructure that was being used for overtly military purposes. You could see things like video of a 'shopping center' being targeted, followed by large immediate and then smaller ongoing secondary detonations - it was storing weapons. Completely destroying civilian infrastructure, on a very wide scale, is not difficult, because such tends to be completely unfortified and unguarded - the exact reason Ukraine was able to destroy the Wildberries facilities so easily. And Ukraine has started an escalation where this is now exactly what is happening in Ukraine as well. I don't know what the outcome of this will be, but this is not, by any sort of logic, making Europe safer or Russia less of a threat. It's also likely to result in a much weaker Ukraine after all is said and done. --- As for the US - EU. The EU is now completely dependent upon the US for both military and energy. In its current state the EU lacks the ability to be an independent power, and they have tied themselves to the US to an unprecedented degree while also accepting an unprecedented degree of abuse from the US. You might argue I should say Trump, and not the US, but watch - the DNC will win 2028, and the tariffs will continue until morale improves. [1] - https://ppu.gov.ua/en/press-center/today-president-of-ukraine-volodymyr-zelenskyy-signed-decree-117-2021-of-march-24-2021-on-the-strategy-of-de-occupation-and-reintegration-of-the-temporarily-occupied-territory-of-the-autonomous-republ/ https://ppu.gov.ua/en/press-center/today-president-of-ukrain...