People keep carrying on about peak oil, climate change, and "corporate greed" because those are less humiliating conversations than admitting that Europe made a major tactical error in trying to sanction their primary energy supplier.
There were only these options:
1) Use Russian gas.
2) Build pipelines via Turkey and risk different dictators.
3) Build an enormous overcapacity for LNG via sea and eat the extreme differential in prices.
4) Build nuclear power plants and generate remaining necessary gas from hydrogen reforming.
So why didn't we do this? The cynic in me thinks it's because despite the progress we've made, the energy companies are still the ones with most power in this world and they are desperate not to give any of it up. Embarking on a program like this would be a massive redistribution of power and wealth to the common folk. The day when there is a solar panel on every roof will happen but the energy companies will do everything in their power to prevent it. They even tried getting legislation through in America to tax households with solar panels installed to make up for their lost revenue.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/13/solar-power-...
Regardless, Russia have been in the Donbass and Crimea since 2014. That European countries and Germany in particular, have decided to increase their reliance on Russian gas since then rather than set up some serious back up plans is really rather complacent.
Handed Ukraine while paying Putin for the privilege?
There are lots of things they should have done:
* Not shut down nuclear until they had alternatives
* Reduced dependencies on Russian exports
* Invested more in clean energy and reduced regulatory barriers to green projects
Supporting Ukraine fully wasn't a mistake.
This forum and the western public in general are not mature enough for that conversation. I am not having that conversation.
My statement is limited to the fact that the energy crisis is a simple and proximate result of the ongoing sanctions and not peak oil, climate change, or corporate greed.
While people are also blaming corporate greed for the price crisis, everyone is well aware that the sanctions are causing pain for both parties. There's no political or social support for going back into Putin's arms, so here we are.
Are you sure it will be just one winter?
In general, Europe is not great at: 1. Moving fast 2. Agreeing on and completing big projects.
I guess we'll have to see if infants are freezing to death in the flats of London this winter. My guess is probably not.
We're mature enough to know that if someone's argument is "you can't handle the truth" they should be taken about as seriously as the film I'm quoting.
Try to handle the truth that the west cannot geostrategically survive Russia becoming China's backyard. Look directly at that truth and let me know if and when you've handled it.
On the other hand, if the Ukraine war and related political stresses prove sufficient, we may actually see Russia split apart. That would make it so that China no longer has a single throat to choke with respect to Russia. It would likely have great knock-on effects with respect to nuclear MAD balance worldwide, since Russia has thus far been US’s largest rival there.
I’d feel horrified, helpless and powerless, coupled with some mixture of:
- “damn, it’s a shame they couldn’t hold out for longer”
- “at least it’s not my own country”
- “my home country is just next door, so I sure hope they’ll stop at Ukraine and don’t go any further yet”
- “I’m so lucky I moved abroad and live on the other end of the continent away from all this”
Just seems like a 2nd cold war on steroids. Not sure why the west won't be the one to survive as opposed to Russia & China.
But also, doesn't that strengthen the argument that the west must intervene? What would you rather oppose, a weaken Russia + China (not to mention a stronger NATO alliance with Finland, Sweden & Ukraine) or a stronger Russia + China?
> Europe made a *major tactical error*
Your follow-up:
> I'm not going to engage the question of whether or not it was morally or *tactically* correct.
I mean, you already have.
I made my own tactical error it appears. I had a good run with this account.
The Pope also made a thoughtful contribution, acknowledging that the matter is far more complicated than western media suggests, while decrying the bloodshed and calling for diplomacy.
Negotiate for peace. Just as the US would object to Mexico joining a military alliance with e.g., China, Russia objects to Ukraine joining a military alliance with the US. Even if you do not believe Russia when they said this is the main issue, calling their bluff would have cost nothing, but potentially saved many lives. Wars end with negotiation. Eventually these negotiations will take place. There will just be fewer Ukrainians and Russians around to witness them.
And, if NATO membership was the primary issue, this war could have been avoided if the Clinton administration had not rebuffed Russia in their request to join NATO themselves.
As to the US proposed sanctions, I suspect that if Germany had not agreed, the EU as a whole would not be participating. And, that if Merkel was still in power, that Germany would not have agreed.
This is a Neville Chamberlain argument. No I'm not comparing Putin to Hitler but the motivations of any dictator are the same. The west *tried* repeatedly to appease Putin so this claim is just patently false and proven to be so.
Let's prove:
* Invasion of Crimea was a test from Putin's side. The west tried all political options to no avail.
* Then he started a "rebellion" and again the west wasn't successful with negotiation
* Before he invaded Biden went public and explained EXACTLY what he was going to do. A smart man would have retreated. This would have humiliated Biden and might have paved the way for Trump to get back into office. But he was stupid and invaded
So no. He isn't a person to negotiate with. He's a liar who doesn't respect the agreements his country signed.
Even if that were true, that is not negotiation. Negotiation implies give and take. Given that the US already agreed not to expand NATO to Russia's border (honored by Bush Sr., but broken by Clinton), a good starting point to negotiation would be to agree to honor past commitments.
The vast majority of the people in Crimea (as Donbas) are Russian speaking, and voted to join Russia[1]. Part of the context leading up to the unrest in Crimea was a far-right government in Kieve that proposed policies against Russian speaking Ukrainian citizens[2]. I'm not opining on Russia's actions in 2014 or today, just pointing out that things were and are a lot more complicated than the dominant narrative in the west (I was surprised to find any US mainstream news source that reported on the referendum, at all, to use as a reference).
[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/crimeans-vote-overwhelmingly-to...
[2] https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2019/4/9/why-ethnopolitic...
Putin repeatedly violated agreements signed by his predecessors including over Crimea with flimsy excuses like the one you're parroting.
We're talking about a guy whose opposition is all dead or in jail. You're arguing for a murderous dictator.
The only policies were the removal of requirement to teach Russian everywhere. It was a ridiculous excuse to go to war. You don't get Russian in your school let's bomb you and your neighbors. There was no Russian heritage discrimination but there was openness to the west which did make Putin nervous.
Clinton adding countries to NATO is not Ukraine's fault and has absolutely nothing to do with them. The invasion had the opposite effect on Russia and shows how stupid Putin really is because now NATO is at his door. Had he not invaded things would have been better off for him.
I'm not arguing for anybody. You obviously have very strong feelings about this subject. But, please do not attribute to me positions I have not expressed. My actual positions (as stated above):
War kills and maims people.
Killing and maiming people should be avoided.
Russia made statements about why they felt the need for war.
Taking those statements at face value would have caused no harm if they were false-- we would simply be in the same place as we are today with war.
Taking those statements at face value could have saved many Ukrainian and Russian lives if they were true and addressed.
Russia's stated concerns have not been addressed in peace negotiations, so we do not know if war could have been avoided or if the war could be brought to an end sooner.
Russians and Ukrainians are currently killing and maiming each other.
The history of the situation is complicated-- there is more than the typical western narrative encompasses.
Russia must bear responsibility for their decision to go to war. But, the US is possibly antagonistic toward negotiations. At a minimum, the US has not engaged in negotiations nor addressed Russia's stated concerns and thus threw away a potential opportunity to prevent bloodshed.
US/NATO pumping weapons into Ukraine serves to extend the conflict (and the death count) before the inevitable negotiations to end the conflict.
To summarize, I'd prefer if we made an effort to not kill people.
There are multiple steps before going to war. Putin was looking for an excuse to go to war and also tried fabricating stuff like Nazis controlling Ukraine (which has a Jewish president) because he knew this is a flimsy excuse. Repeating this nonsense gives validity to a war criminal.
> Russians and Ukrainians are currently killing and maiming each other.
No. One side invaded the other. This isn't symmetric.
> The history of the situation is complicated
No. There's a lot of noise in terms of history. But people use it to mask simple facts. A dictator invaded a sovereign nation. Killed civilians who he claims to protect.
The US isn't at fault in any way. You can't negotiate with a liar who violates agreements. Russia attacked US elections in a blatant way and explicitly instigated a policy of sabotage. There were plenty of opportunities along the way to de-escalate. But the US didn't escalate. It very explicitly stated early on that no soldiers will go into Ukraine. It made it hard for Ukraine to join NATO, etc. Putin violated the status quo.
They arm Ukraine because the alternative would be the annihilation of the country. So far the Russian forces took over areas and forced migration into Russia, killed people in the streets, etc. These are terrible people.
> To summarize, I'd prefer if we made an effort to not kill people.
This is nonsense. A lot of effort was put into that. Unfortunately, sometimes the only thing you can do is stand up and protect your country. This is what the people of Ukraine are doing. Putin isn't giving them a choice.
They have talks all the time. In the talks people literally got poisoned!
You're perpetuating a false Russian narrative that has been discredited time and time again.
Your analogy is missing that the US forcibly annexed the Baja California peninsula, say, prior to Mexico attempting to join said alliance. Multiple Ukrainian governments prior to 2014 had said they had no intention of joining NATO. Crimea changed their mind.
How about not helping overthrow legally elected presidents?
They elected a president who's policy is just that.
The rebellion was against a puppet installed by Russia. You might not accept those facts and claim the west is lying here. That's an option and it won't be the first/last time that happened. In terms of track record for lying, I'm going to take the west as more reliable than the east. Pretty much all my Russian and Ukrainian friends would agree to that assertion.
By the means of democratic general elections?
They won't have to be a 'part' of Russia provided that they has observed some basic precautions, which I have listed and whose violations you are vehemently defending.
About elections. It's funny that you're so passionate about elections when results suite your opinions. Yanukovych was elected by a hair unlike the current president. So you show lack of respect to democracy.
Tell that to Belgium, Ireland, Italy or Canada.
Ukraine is a deeply divided country and by violating ECRML they went not the Western but sub-Sakharan African way.
They shouldn't have done that. They would have their whole country, including Crimea, no war and 2x economy, if only they did not listen to western NGOs sitting on their ears like you do right now. About all of the wonderful independent rights of suppressing their own population for their language or electoral preference.
> Yanukovych was elected by a hair
Yep, so? As are most of presidents of the USA. Or Brexit.
Sure it's a divided country. No question. You don't bomb countries for being divided. Had Putin stayed in the Dunbas area that would have been a moderate excuse. He chose to attack the entire country and assassinate the elected president.
You sound like the people who tell a beaten wife that she shouldn't have talked back... Putin is a criminal and you're making excuses for him. He tried to take Ukraine in the gentle way by installing a puppet. When that didn't work he's trying force. Ukraine was distancing itself from Russia because of Putins policies.
You're picking small things to justify terrible HUGE things. If someone says something bad to you on the street shooting their head off would be justifiable?
That's the level of excuses I'm reading here.
Crimea is the beaten wife. Ukraine is the psycho husband. Russia thinks it has to enforce the restraining order.
You are the person who thinks criminal law has no place to be in a family, including a dysfunctional one.
> assassinate the elected president
Wat
Why are Ukrainians fighting against Russia and so few are fighting with it?
There are Ukrainians who want Russian rule. That is obvious. But they are a tiny minority and elections proved it. Most of those who are interested in a Ukraine that is closer to Russia are fighting against it right now.
This can only be true if you discount people from territories Ukraine does not control but still claims.