Hacker News Reader

Comment by Someone1234 | Hacker News Reader

It is a race down, and the EU is "winning." The EU was/is too heavily dependent on Russian oil and natural gas whereas the US has better isolation due to its domestic fuel production.

Both regions need to improve renewables for national security reasons, and work on winterizing and migration to residential/commercial heat-pump technology to both reduce usage but also move to electrical-based heating/cooling which can be sourced from multiple vectors (renewables, gas, nuclear, et al.).

People frame renewables around global climate change, which while true, isn't the elephant in the room. The elephant is national security and stability, and renewables are a key element.

View on HN

> EU was/is too heavily dependent on Russian oil and natural gas whereas the US has better isolation due to its domestic fuel production.

Oil follows the "law of one price" globally; https://public.wsu.edu/~hallagan/EconS327/weeks/week9/LOOP.p... global prices converge since it's an identical commodity that can be transported with low friction.

When the EU restricts russian oil, India and China buy more, and then EU buys more oil from elsewhere -- it's a global market that readjusts relatively quickly.

There is some short term friction around switching costs and infrastructure, moreso for volatile-to-transport gas than for oil, but this shouldn't be a meaningful factor to currency. There are tons of other impacts of war, such as general destruction of capital and people's productivity, as well as plenty of other explanatory factors that would have a bigger effect here.

but it's about gas, always has been

Oil heating in Germany isn't supper common, it depends a bit on the region as it was trendy during some time in the past but most oil heating which had been build in the past has been replaced by gas at some point in the last 20 years.

US denominated debt in Europe is the real elephant to the lay person. Much debt was created in Europe and elsewhere outside the US that was priced and must be settled in USD - at far lower interest rates than are emerging from the FED at present.

Because as Victoria Nuland said back in 2014 when this was all kicking off, "F** the EU" [0]

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2XNN0Yt6D8

Long term we need more renewables. Short term we need a negotiated end to this war.

There is going to be economic carnage if we keep turning the heat up.

The West/NATO are reluctant to force Ukraine to make a settlement. They've been very clear that it's up to the Ukrainians. That could change closer to winter and it seems Zelensky is aware of that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/28/zelensky-...

Why should anyone settle with a robber? We should be destroying the lives of criminals like this, not settling

The better example is that Russia was robbing a bank and now has hostages (I think I've seen many movies about it). Why negotiate even though they're wrong? Because they can shoot a hostage (nuke something).

Their nukes don't mean that you let them do whatever they want. But it means that you have to take limited actions that keep the warfare conventional. And sometimes that means settling with them.

Heck, finding something that Putin can claim is a victory is probably important if you want the war to end. It doesn't matter if it's real, and it may not matter if he thinks it's something he won. It certainly matters that he can tell the Russian people that the cost they bore to "denazify" Ukraine worked. Otherwise, he failed and that way lies bad consequences for dictators.

Oh I don't know, EU leadership and officials were more than happy to settle with with a dictator who annexed foreign land, crushed dissent and assassinated political rivals both domestically and on foreign soil. They were happy to sell him weapons. Hell they invited the bastard to dance on their weddings.

It really is a good question why has the world leaders have settled with a person like that in charge of a nuclear power. I wonder if cheap energy had something to do with that.

A settlement will only be a license for Russia to do the same thing again in a couple of years’ time. It’s not even the third time they do this in the last 20 years. This has no easy solution, but pressuring Ukraine to give up its land would be particularly bad.

Do the same how? Putin's demands were clear at the start of the war - cede Crimea to Russia, and let Donetsk and Luhansk become independent: https://www.reuters.com/world/kremlin-says-russian-military-...

The majority of those territories were already occupied for the last 8 years, it would have been better to negotiate that at the start.

Clearly you’ve not being paying attention when they went to execute every politician and takeover Kiev?

They made a it crystal clear what it would have taken to prevent that and what they demanded wasnt even all that unreasonable - respect minsk 2 - something they already agreed to, dont join the NATO gang and cede crimea. All 3 were rejected.

The west refused to even accept the result of a landslide referendum whose veracity was confirmed by our own polls.

It's a good thing respect for democracy isnt a cornerstone of what we stand for coz one of those three demands was just "respect a democratic vote". Imagine the optics of pensioners dying of cold in the German winter because the Americans rejected democracy.

Russia doesn't get to conquer territory and demand the ceding of other countries territories to them.

Russia needs to be dismantled military and ideally should be denuclearised they have proven they cannot play at the table with adults.

This is a rough war for everyone, but its a war that unfortunately needs to happen, Russia must have a decisive defeat or they will continue behaving how they have been for years now which is bad for the entire world.

What you refer to as the adults is a vicious empire that imprisons its journalists, supports brutal dictatorships and topples democratically elected governments and invades on a whim committing war crimes. This is our gang - the "good guys", who just so happen to mimic Russia's worst excesses when push comes to shove.

Now our gang is fighting a proxy war with another nuclear gang because we cant deal with the result of a democratic vote to join Russia in a place that speaks exclusively Russian.

And we're being asked to freeze to death out of sympathy.

Im not sure theres any evidence that the 'good guys' you seem very keen to compare to the Russians, raped and killed children, mass looted everywhere they went and deported or executed everyone over a certain age in regions.

The Russians aren't soldiers like the west expects.

Im sure your opinion would be different if it was your friends and family be executed and raped.

This is all pretty routine in most wars. E.g. for every action taken by Russia in Ukraine we have condemned with fervor (e.g. "bombing a hospital") western media have tried to justify the same behavior in Israel ("but there were militants there!").

In Yemen we dont even really try to justify the war crimes we just ignore them and keep sending weapons in Saudi's war of aggression.

The war crimes committed by Azov since 2014 we are equally indifferent to because hey, it's Russia and those Nazis are good fighters.

This war is purely a clash of empires. NATO are happy to discard all of the principles we purport to represent AND sacrifice the wellbeing of all Europeans even if all we do is give Russia a black eye.

Mass rapes are not 'routine' for most wars. Its an atrocity that is being committed by Russia against Ukraine. Just like how it was an atrocity when other countries mass rapped people.

This war is purely Russias, it is a war of aggression designed to wipe out a cultural, a people, its genocide.

That Russia is committing genocide in Ukraine is unsurprising they already did this before during the USSR with the holodomor.

Russia is solely responsible for this war.

It's lucky that a lot of Europe is happy to sacrifice both its weapons and some of its economy to stop the authoritarian beast just like they did in WW2.

Are you refering specifically to Lyudmila Denisova's rape accusations? They were pretty serious, yeah.

Genocide has quite a high bar. Biden's opinion is currently that what Russia is doing doesnt meet it.

> Are you refering specifically to Lyudmila Denisova's rape accusations? They were pretty serious.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_violence_in_the_2022_Ru... just pick anyone of them.

> Genocide has quite a high bar. Biden's opinion is currently that what Russia is doing doesnt meet it.

Genocide is certainly a high bar and the Russians are certainly doing their very best to meet it, its arguable if they are meeting it but per the definition of the UN they are easily meeting it.

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

Even without anything else Russia is already doing.

> Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

>just pick anyone of them.

That one is notable because she had zero evidence and said she was doing it to ensure Ukraine got more weapons.

Wikipedia refers to her accusations but leaves the part out where she was fired for doing that.

Your team (Azov) committed rape all the way back in 2014, as documented by OHCHR: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/UA/Ukraine_14th_HRM...

Yeah her accusations are only part of it theirs plenty of independent accusations on their.

Why did you need evidence anyway according to you mass rape is a standard part of war no?. So we can expect the Russian armed forces to mass rape in every war yes?.

Democratic vote? Are you high. They executed and disappeared any opposition.

And which 'adults' are going to do the dismantling?

I'll wait.

This kind of aggressive know-nothing 'naivety on the warpath' is all too common at the moment. It might get us all killed.

Not even going to try engagement with you, your replies either lack any sort of critical analysis of the facts or you’re acting in bad faith.

Putin has lied since day 1. His words betrayed his motives and the facts about his actions are clear to everyone. Russia under Putin is a terrorist state. And the sooner the west fully isolates them fully the better.

> Do the same how? Putin's demands were clear at the start of the war [...]

> The majority of those territories were already occupied for the last 8 years

How do you have an invasion, occupation by one country of large sections of the territory of another, with shelling and other fighting between the parties, without a war?

You don't; you are confused as to what the beginning of the war is.

I don't get this, so they take over another country near their border. What is the objective downside for the rest of the world and the people affected? We already don't care enough to "help" the Russian people, so why care about adding more of them into the fold? If we really cared and if we thought their suffering was worth the price to pay, we would be invading Russia and Ukraine right now to "liberate" the people. Instead we're weighing up the cost of people's lives and playing word games, perpetually.

Russia is past the point of no return. There can be no negotiations as long as Ukraine is still standing. Putin went all in and will get culled when the odds of failure are deemed too great by the court. His successor must be worse than him, as all the better ones have been eliminated already.

It’s a certified shit show and the only thing preventing conventional war in all of Eastern Europe right now is NATO. Economic war (and cyber and psyops) is what’s left, so that’s what they’re fighting with. Looks like they ran out of stuff to steal from their own citizens, so had to start looking outwards.

>It’s a certified shit show and the only thing preventing conventional war in all of Eastern Europe right now is NATO.

The two things that caused this war are:

1) NATO the "defensive" alliance tearing libya to shreds like a rabid dog, basically for sport. This signaled the start of Putin's paranoia.

2) NATO putting Ukraine on the path to membership and refusing to back off.

Joining a gang is dangerous. Ukraine paid dearly for trying to join ours.

1) NATO took it's action in Libya due to UN Security Council resolution 1973. First several NATO members (and non-members like UAE and Qatar) were attacked to implement the UNSC resolution. A couple weeks later, NATO took over as a coordinating body of the military forces. Some members (like Germany) declined to participate at all.

2) NATO never put Ukraine on the path to membership, although as a result of this invasion they're changing their mind.

Sorry, just noticed the bad typing. The several NATO countries, Qatar and the UAE attacked Libya. They never were attacked

1) 1973 was about a no fly zone to protect civilians. NATO decided to upgrade that to regime change, committing war crimes in the process. The country never recovered and the status of NATO as a primarily offensive alliance dedicated to destroying countries we dont like was sealed.

2) This is what NATO itself said at the 2021 summit. It was crystal clear about its intention to continue the admission process for Ukraine.

1) Sure, the Security Council provided the figleaf for the rape of Libya and its descent into a failed state. That doesn't excuse the activity, rather it undermines the legitimacy of the Security Council.

2) Please, don't embarrass yourself. Ukraine was explicitly on the path to NATO membership (as of 2008), and the place was crawling with NATO trainers and advisors.

NATO probably won't exist in a decade. The US is not that committed to European security, and nobody else is worth a spit.

Yeah, it's all NATO's fault and has nothing to do with Putin's irrational aggression.

Ukraine is a sovereign nation they are free to join any alliance they want.

If Russia cannot handle its neighbours making decisions as a sovereign nation, then thats there problem.

They are sovereign. Just as a kid in South Central is a free individual who can join any street gang they want for protection. This too is sometimes a death sentence, as the gang they try to join for protection uses them as cannon fodder.

It's possible Russia would have accepted their membership if NATO hadnt underscored its status as an offensive alliance with the destruction of Libya in 2011. Sadly this confirmed the reality to every Russian that NATO is an imperial threat.

If Russia cannot help itself but invade any neighbour that goes against its wishes then Russia needs to not have a military anymore its that simple.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com