Putin’s Energy War with Europe Seems to Falter | Hacker News Reader

Putin’s Energy War with Europe Seems to Falter

wsj.com

59 pointsvwoolf140 comments

But long term, despite their history of moronic energy policy, I don't see the EU making itself dependent again on Russian gas (or any other critical commodity). Which is kind of a problem for a commodity driven economy like Russia.

One could argue reduced dependency on natural resource export could benefit russian economy in the long term because it undermines current regime, the root cause of the lack of growth during the last decade.

I don't think a different regime would have fundamentally acted differently. Russia is too big to be in the EU (Germany and France would never allow it), and too small to be a 'nice' player next to super powers. Animosity towards Russia from the side of eastern Europe was always high, and the US kept using Russia as a useful boogie man, while China is a double-daggered partner.

Russia never had a lot of options, and while it would have been better for Russians living standards to "roll over and accept defeat", this would have been political suicide for any regime.

Maybe instead of "rolling over and accepting defeat" just not starting the war would have worked ?

No, I don't think so. That would only put the spotlight on how mediocre to miserable life is in Russia. Not great politically. Look at Erdogan now, vying for international cred when the economy is tanking at home. He has an election coming up where he might not be rock solid as usual.

I see similarities.

Russia as it currently is, is a massive and diverse country with many talented and artistic people. It could take any number of courses, and act in many different ways to be a better world citizen, but it hasn't. Russia had, and still has many many options, but somehow seems stuck in a downward spiral of trying to throw its weight around the world whilst simultaneously casting itself as a perpetual victim.

Surprisingly short-sighted by the Russians

Putin turns 70 this year, and he only needs to keep the status quo until he peacefully dies.

Russians have no voice there.

Wait until the winter is over before you say anything.

We're looking at likely blackouts in Germany, things that only happened in third world hell holes and Texas until recently.

Households are a minority electricity user there. Blackouts for homes are still possible by policy choice of course.

The EU has some of the best energy policy in the world.

It's the fossil fuel industry claiming they don't, because good energy policy in the 21st century means dropping fossil fuels over the next couple of decades and the more and faster nations follow the EUs lead, the less power the fossil fuel industry and Russia/Saudi Arabia etc have.

That's why there were so many people excited in the comments here at the thought of europeans freezing to death this winter.

Finally after being mocked for decades for saying green energy was unreliable, and climate change didn't exist, they've been proved right by a fossil fuel producer tactically, but not strategically, cutting off their sales at short notice for political reasons during a war, lying about it being the EUs green policies at fault and failing to achieve anything by doing so.

I think you overestimate the relevance of EU energy policies, especially looking backwards (as you emphasize its history). It's been more aspirational, but mostly the policymaking happens on national level. The carbon trading system is a commendable accomplishment though, even with all its faults.

Granted, I really mean EU countries.

Other than nuclear, what options do these countries have to avoid their dependency? I'm curious since solar is not an option I'm winter.

What makes you think solar isn't an option in winter? Solar panels get more efficient as the temperature drops. The amount of sunlight you receive is diminished by shorter days, but you can calculate that and compensate. It's similar to how we compensate for nighttime.

Or were you thinking of compensating for the BTUs consumed in winter to heat homes? Even in that case today's heat pumps are dramatically more efficient than they were 30 years ago and they were already more efficient than gas furnaces, even then. There's a lot that can be done to dramatically reduce the amount of energy required to heat homes to the level we're heating them today.

I think the only question here is not if the EU can secure "enough gas", which I doubt it can even if the article is so sure, but at what price? And can the German industry stay competitive with those energy prices?

In case it can't, what will be the EU's future without Germany as the economic motor?

Germany has never rebuilt it's economy and never switched the energy source powering it. The rest of EU will just sit idly by and watch as the trend continues downward without taking any action. /s

We're stuck in between "don't want" an "can't", hoping that the problem will disappear on its own.

Instead of going all-in on local sources or renewables (even power2gas would be cheaper than current import prices), with only 272 wind turbines built so far this year and the goal still being a lowly 2% land covered in turbines, we're replacing one external unreliable source with another, which includes more complicated means of transportation (ship vs. pipe).

Politics and media are discussion short-term topics like continuing to run the remaining 3 nuke plants, and running a bit more on coal for electricity.

Instead, short term actions should just be done, and the time for discussion used to get to some long term consensus on some viable future concepts.

We already have consensus on the viable long term concepts. Some people have just been trying really hard to ignore and delay the acceptance of that reality.

Talking up the "chaos" and refusing to do basic things to help people when "disaster capitalists" would rather leverage the problem to funnel money to their backers is just another chapter in that fight.

As is the weird focus on land coverage. No one sensible is talking about that. It has never been a problem to worry about, and it certainly isn't a metric to aim for.

Maybe France can take over, at a lower productive level certainly. We have less ideology in energy sourcing (I d say many of us may even be proud of nuclear power and I had enough insanely aggressive debate with our German friends to know there s someth wrong there in how they represent it), we can find a way to change our work culture to target profitability a bit more and we can take as many german refugees as we need to fill our skill gaps.

Germany is the most profitable most efficient economic engine in the EU, by far probably, but if it falters, we'll find another way, as we always have, and maybe end up with less millionaires.

One thing we wont do is allow Russia to start land grabbing unopposed in the hope they ll be nice and stop at Ukraine. We ve seen it before, many times, we've even done it ourselves, we know how it ends.

The French nuclear power plants are one of the problems right now. I'm not convinced that France has an advantage here as they also don't seem to be able to build new reactors for a reasonable price in a reasonable timeframe. Having a lot of old reactors that need to be shut down a lot due to temperatures and maintenance it not really helping things.

> I'm not convinced that France has an advantage here as they also don't seem to be able to build new reactors for a reasonable price in a reasonable timeframe.

Of course the first reactors of an entirely new design will have problems, delays and be over budget. It's something extremely complex that needs to be extremely secure.

As with before, lessons will be learned, and future reactors of the same design will come along for cheaper and faster.

If you want to be a bit paranoid, but not entirely unrealistic, you might see a connection between Germany's aversion to nuclear power and our reliance on Russian gas.

I wouldn't go as far as to believe that Russia has infiltrated our whole politics to the point where they can dictate what energy sources we use, but they may well have taken some degree of influence over public perception of nuclear power as inherently "dangerous".

Either way, even if it is for the "wrong" reasons, I do think that the nuclear power aversion isn't necessarily a bad thing; the technology is old, requires massive investments before it can be used and still requires its own type of fuel to run.

Most renewable sources, meanwhile, can be built up more gradually, and every finished wind turbine, solar panel, etc. starts producing energy right away. Acquiring know-how in these fields could also prove very valuable whenever the rest of the world decides to rely more heavily on these technologies (assuming cold fusion doesn't become viable before then)

You don't need to be paranoid to think that Russia is influencing energy policy:

> Speaking at a global manufacturing conference, the president said: "Wind-powered generation is good but are birds being taken into account in this case? How many birds are dying?"

> "[Wind turbines] shake, causing worms to come out of the soil. This is not a joke," he said.

...

> A study published in 2009 looking at the US and Europe estimated that wind farms were responsible for about 0.3 bird deaths for every 1GWh of electricity generated, compared with 5.2 deaths per 1GWh caused by fossil-fuelled power stations.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48936941

Russia is currently wasting their own money, which they could spend on wars and other useful stuff, by not deploying wind energy, and that's only going to become more true:

> The introduction of a cross-border carbon tax by the EU in the near future or the fact that customers out- side Russia want to decrease their purchases of pollut- ing energy carriers may become a significant incentive for the RES development in Russia, including wind en- ergy. Russian exporters will be interested in investing in renewable energy to save on carbon duties. The entire Russian economy will also be interested in this as it is more profitable to invest the financial resources in the development of green industries within the country than allowing the duties to be paid abroad.

https://wwindea.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/210319-FESMOS...

Germany has never had competitive gas prices compared to the US or China. Germany competed despite the energy prices (electricity is even more expensive). Since Germany mostly sells premium products, they will probably be fine.

The assumption here is also that gas prices stay high. They might very well be, they might be higher, but they might also go down. At the moment it's very hard to tell where this is going. If the Gas prices stay high for an extended period of time, the EU's smallest problem is probably going to be Germany.

The profit margin’s of the energy companies are more important than the economy. Take UK with only 8% Russian imports, but prices have somehow doubled. Same story in the EU

They doubled as the UK is part of the wider market, so subject to market forces due to the way it is structured... In this situation, green energy producers are also getting a significant boost as their energy is very low marginal cost of production and commands the same rate as fossil fuels. Hopefully that is at least some silver lining... Maybe we could tax the fossil fuel companies and support the UK taxpayers rather than laying down more debt in the form of taxpayer loans.

And the prices are soaring. I am currently under contract and have 'normal' price per month but my contract ends this year. A friend of mine showed me his currently price for energy (gas and electricity bill in one) and his price wend from 300 to a 1100 per month. For people having a low income this is devastating. Some people on welfare cut the gas line to avoid getting into billing issues. I fear the future.

> European governments say Mr. Putin’s gambit is to cut natural-gas supplies to inflict pain on European households and businesses so populations turn against current government policies of sanctions against Russia and support for Ukraine with weapons and financial aid.

He's so terribly wrong. He doesn't know Europeans at all. There is no way people would say, "We are cold so it is fine to kill Ukrainians." How could we look in the mirror? It's against the very core of who we are. Of course people are concerned, but the solutions are non-Russian sources of energy exclusively.

Correct, the best way to unite a group is to attack its core values - a sure way to bring people together. If we, as Europeans, allow Russia to proceed, just to stay warm in winter, we'd give up on our core values, which are what makes us a democratic Europe.

Which is why Europe (and the US) have been instituted with so many divisive movements in the recent decade.

Then Europeans will have to fight anti-demcratic movements in Hungary, Poland, Sweden, Italy, Spain, wait... more and more of Europe is on the list of countries where political parties with openly anti-democratic values ("illiberal democracies") are not only in parliaments, but also in governments.

See recent success for "Sweden Democrats" and take a look at the votes in Italy next week.

Also you have to always remember that Ursula von der Leyen could only get into her position with the help of the vote of far right - she will never be against far right for that reason alone.

There is a huge theater going on re "european values" - this is not reflected by reality. E.g. the current "measures" taken against Hungary are seen as a joke.

Your comment is an unnecessarily long way to say "imperfect things are not perfect". Democracies are unstable and need constant defense. That's not a new thing and that will be true for a long time to come.

Yup, my stance as well. Russia is making an ideological mistake and just doesn’t understand the 21st century (and what we learned in the 20th)

It’s a lot more complicated to be honest.

There are different ways to end the conflicts and different degrees of support possible. Some European countries were in favour of pushing for peace talks far earlier but the current Ukrainian government has complete support from the USA and territorial ambition of its own.

Belligerents are not into it out of the goodness of their heart you know. It’s not really about saving Ukrainian lives. It’s actually far from obvious that prolonging the war saves lives. But most of the EU has taken a very Atlantist position on this conflict and at this point it’s probably better to keep going and significantly neuter Russia.

The longer is the war the higher is the risk for the local population on occupied territories. Not only because of filtration and direct oppression by security forces, but also because of reduced access to healthcare and basic necessities like food, heating, drinking water etc. The winter is coming and the infrastructure in many cities and villages is completely destroyed. Russia does not demonstrate any intent to rebuild it in next few months.

EDIT: „the longer is occupation..“ will be more correct. This is an incentive for liberation more than for negotiation.

Peace talks earlier would maybe have saved lives, but what kind of life is it living under Russian rule?

Russia is deteriorating and is apparently trying to solve it with conquest. Giving in would be like telling the police to don't disturb the mob when doing extortion, someone might get killed.

Peace talks before Russia is pushed back at least to Ukraine's post-2014 borders is basically a victory for Russia, and we would have this conversation again in 5-10 years.

Peace talks could have involved a return to post-2014 borders as a condition. At this point it’s science-fiction anyway and it’s becoming clear that Ukraine wants to take back Crimea.

I don’t know nor have access to the information necessary to judge if it would have been better for the population.

I just deeply dislike the narrative which pushes the Ukrainian conflict as an unambiguous fight between the forces of good and evil with a single acceptable outcome and where anything short of total support for one side to keep fighting is seen as wrong.

Ukrainians in occupied territories seem to get murdered, tortured and raped. So yeah I think it’s fair to say they’d be better off without the Russians.

It’s a war. What did you expect exactly?

Now that the Ukrainians are taking back territories I fully expect the purging related stories to be on their way and it’s not going to look pretty as usual. Wars are disgusting affairs.

You can’t base your analysis on the reported exactions committed by one side. That’s just setting you as an easy target for propaganda.

1. You're contradicting yourself: in your third point, you say that I shouldn't trust that civilians are getting murdered, raped and tortured. But in your first point, you say that I should be expecting such behavior.

2. I'd expect there to not be a war to begin with. Russia 100% controls this, and can stop whenever they want.

3. War doesn't have to be done in the most brutal way possible.

4. "the purging related stories to be on their way and it’s not going to look pretty as usual" I don't understand what this means.

I'm getting very strong pro-Russian vibes from your comments. Not going to reply anymore -- real people are dying.

I never said that you shouldn’t trust that civilians are being raped, tortured and murdered. They most definitely are. That’s the reality of war. It’s always brutal. There is no such thing as a clean war.

I said focusing on that makes you analysing conflicts poorly and expose you to be manipulated. I am most definitely not pro-Russian. I am very much pro the interests of my own country first however.

Any outcome that doesn't discourage Russia from just trying again is obviously bad for the Ukrainian population in the long run. Peace talks before serious Ukranian progress at retaking Crimea would also just be a repetition of previous attempts to resolve the issue and appease Ukraine and the West while pursuing a completely different agenda.

Discouraging Russia and retaking Crimea are unrelated goals.

I don’t foresee Ukraine getting back Crimea ending well for the population of Crimea. Let’s not forget Crimea has tried to be independent since 1991 and Ukraine had to send its army there in 1995. I don’t think a peaceful reintegration is possible.

Expensive solution even so. In Romania (One of Europe's poorest countries) this month's price for a kilowatt is 57 cents (if you use > 300 kw per month on average). The UK price is about 36 pence per kw (41 cents).

It's going up to 36 cents in Germany come October. I've proactively replaced some perfectly functional but energy guzzling equipment with modern efficient ones, and it has dropped my consumption by over 30%, which will more than negate the energy cost increase. The break-even cost on them ranges from 1-4 years.

Sure. We all remember the solidarity EU showed among its members during the previous economic crisis and during COVID.

I'm sure we're all happy to support Eurocrats again in their quest to get Ukraine in NATO for no good reason at all and -like they say- fight Putin to the last Ukrainian.

Until recently Russia was more or less neutral. Now that it showed its aggressive face and complete contempt of human lives, people are happy that it gets weaker and weaker. Yes, Ukrainians are dying, but they prefer to die rather than live under the Russian boot.

Many Ukrainians actually tried to leave Ukraine but they were forbidden to do so under a sexist policy that forced them to join the army.

This isn’t unique to Ukraine. As an example, all Swedes are required by law to help out in case of an invasion.

That s what "european governments say" that putin thinks, not what he thinks. He is always looking for ways to use EU rules against itself, and thanks to lots of regulations, EU has tied itself in a knot here.

Also i don't think you re right. Europeans were fine with "let yemenis die" , and fine with "let armenians die" becuase of oil and gas respectively.

Those are not our people (non christian, non white). Ukrainians are. There is absolutely a difference that could be called racism, or more keenly it’s the fact that people are moved more by what they consider more close and similar to themselves.

Just to be clear, I think that’s wrong, but I wouldn’t compare those two examples with Ukraine.

Armenians are both white and Christian. They just happen to stuck in a hard place (NATO needs Turkey and Turkey is intent on finishing their centuries-long genocide of Armenians through their proxy Azerbaijan).

And it would be interesting to see how it plays out as Russia refused to help Armenia - but it looks like the USA is siding with Armenia against Azerbaijan (and I don't believe it is just to make Erdogan angry).

IMO they are siding with Armenia at the moment only because the latest conflict actually took place on the border between the 2 countries. Once Azerbaijan restarts in NK/Artsakh proper, USA will get on the sideline.

I'm sorry but I share a border with Ukraine and unless you're close to the border to maybe interact with them more I'm not sure many in my own country would feel kinship with them. We're more concerned that the war is on our doorstep. I can assure you this is how most of my country feels. There are some that are virtue signaling and are very active in their support for Ukraine on social media but I've met enough people from random places to say that we don't in fact consider them our people.

My only interaction with Ukrainians has been through video games and I've not seen any difference in behavior from Russians, mainly they've been selfish, refusing to speak English and just a pain to cooperate with

I've had quite the opposite experience working with Ukrainians as peers at my last company: I find them much like other Europeans. I very much care about their welfare and have given much of my own money to support them. I have offered my own apartment for shelter.

If you don't want to care about them that's fine but please do not project your lack of empathy to others as to what this really is about.

Just an observation: both of your experiences can be true, as you have personal experience with Ukrainians in real life and GP has experience online via video games.

Yes, but splitting the difference should never be to become numb or indifferent to the tragedy happening daily to these people. This person had some bad experiences online gaming with people they somehow identified as Ukrainians from Ukraine and that suggests what exactly? That the rest of us are virtue signaling because of their bad experience?

The comment I replied to implied Ukrainians are "our" people. I don't think most of Europe thought of them like that before the west pushed their narrative and brought them to the attention while vilifying Russians. You have more sympathy for them compared to the average EU citizen that has never interacted with them because.. well you interacted with them and you had a positive experience. A lot of people make friends in the workplace and that affected you directly which I understand and I'm not saying you specifically are virtue signaling. But how many people are in your position and aren't just reacting to what the media is telling them?

I just don't see why I personally would have more sympathy for Ukrainians than the other countless people who are at war all over the world and have been at war constantly for decades. I understand caring more about this war because it's near the west and there's a chance it triggers WW3 but I believe most people, especially US citizens only show sympathy because of their party affiliation or to virtue signal or because if you don't you'll get ostracized etc.

> Those are not our people (non christian, non white).

Did you mean to end in "/s" for sarcasm?

Armenia was the very first country in the world to adopt Christianity, and is officially Christian to this day. As for "non white"… do you know where the term "Caucasian" comes from?

You may not consider Armenians "our people", that's your call. But you don't get to hide behind Armenia's religion or ethnicity.

The fact that racist comments like the grandparent are getting a pass here on HN is sickening. "They are not the same because they aren't white and christian". My comment that yemeni and ukrainian lives are of equal value got downvoted. I even here these sorts of comments from close friends. "We should care about Ukraine because they are 'like us'". WTF do you mean "like us"? I have more relatives near Yemen than Ukraine. People bleed and suffer everywhere.

Did you even try to read my comment? I’m saying that is the sentiment and the reason why there’s too different reactions. OF COURSE the value of life is equal, but in Europe we see Yemen and we see a far away land that is culturally far. We see Ukraine and we see our neighbors and history. No justification for the different feelings, just a very simple explanation.

Maybe you get downvoted because you’re confrontational and can’t seem to properly understand what you read?

You said they are not comparable. What does that mean? Skin color and religion are superficial differences when it comes to death and suffering.

This is exactly right. I saw a picture of newly built houses with dead bodies strewn in front of them (Can't find the picture anymore, been looking for a while now). The houses and scenery looked like it could be my country. No pictures of war in the past ever hit me like that.

To assume that everyone chooses skin color and religion as the core identifiers for similarity and value is awfully presumptuous. Those should absolutely not be the deciding factor as to whether lives matter. Yemeni and Ukrainian lives are of equal value, full stop.

Neither Yemen nor Armenia have much strategic importance for NATO, Ukraine does. That's the difference. The support for Ukraine isn't being driven from the bottom up, it's being driven from the top down. And Armenia is white and Christian, btw.

The difference is that their defence works. When the war started, everyone assumed Russia would take over quickly, and things would go back to normal (for western countries, not Ukraine). But no, it did not end quickly, ooops. Now they need help, weapons start to be delivered. Still no-one really believing that they would repel Russia, so just some simple defensive items to show support. 200 days forward, they are actively pushing back, and this is used as a reason to discuss delivery of even more heavy weapons (now MBTs).

It's as if they need to prove that they are worth to be supported, instead of deploying what is needed as early as possible.

> It's as if they need to prove that they are worth to be supported, instead of deploying what is needed as early as possible.

In a way, yes - if Russians managed to take over in the first days, all this modern weapons would be in their hands.

Probably, but in this case. It is also a lot of where next in line after the Ukrainians. Because if Putin thinks it is worth invading Ukraine then he thinks the same of Poland. And if successful there then Germany is next, etc.

The domino theory holds here and the only way to stop it is to make sure the current domino (Ukraine) does not fall.

I would replace "Poland" with "the Baltic States", because in their case he could also argue that the Russian minority there is "oppressed", same as in Ukraine's case, whereas Poland doesn't have a significant Russian minority. But the main issue with this is that all of these are NATO members, while Ukraine isn't...

https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/eu-yemen-relations_en

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia–European_Union_relatio...

https://europeanmovement.eu/news/european-parliament-include...

I think your comment is way to black-and-white and or without scope.

I think apart from the fact that the conflict is a lot closer to us, one huge difference is that this conflict is very straightforward. It's an invasion into a sovereign country. Just compare the original Krim/DPR/LPR annexation, the story was much more muddled because the invasion was obfuscated and you had the alternative story that these were actually Russians that wanted to belong to Russia. Doesn't matter what the truth is here, simply making it appear that this could be more like a civil war/separatist thing makes it complex enough that we didn't really care.

> There is no way people would say, "We are cold so it is fine to kill Ukrainians."

We killed one of our former presidents at the execution wall because of rationalized food and cold in our homes. I am European.

And before anyone comes in and says: "you killed Ceausescu because you wanted communism deposed!". No, we didn't, we wanted "communism" that would provide us with food in the stores and heat in our homes, "communism with a human face", as they were calling it. That's why at the 1990 general elections we overwhelmingly elected a former Communist Party apparatchik.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_and_execution_of_Nicolae...

Thanks for your comment. That wikipedia article led me to watch Ceausescu's last speech and learn more about that time. It's such an interesting video because you understand the transition that he's lost control of the country (I don't want to say moment because it's probably much more complicated).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcRWiz1PhKU

The myths we live by...

My remark is of a philosophical nature how a culture/society creates its myths and their role in the dynamics of elites and the subjects. None of the comments, neither the original article nor on this thread cover even 1% of the reality on the origin of the crisis (energy), nor does it explain how the current EU energy market has been developed by whom and who it keeps in power, and what might be the solution (bashing Putin and puffin our proverbial chest is not it I know that much).

How such medieval mentality that we display here and in general media (us vs Putin) is so pervasive gives little hope that we even care to know the truth, care for real solution, or even care for ourselves. There is just so much to unpack that there is no chance here from such a simple sentence.

To be fair, many other HN comment sections on this topic have discussed exactly these questions, including the history of the current energy mix.

Im sure there were, however, from my point of view it seems (and Im not trying to fight that, just observing) the collective "mania" and false logic predicated on tribal mentality of emotions (for emotions can be controlled unlike reasoned populace) is thoroughly hammered into the populace . So, any thread, as you point out, has the nearly identical tones, emotions, and false claims.

To be clear, during a hot war it can make logical sense to rally around "the cause".

Sometimes the only appropriate answer to tribal, violent attack, is violence in return.

People are tribal and emotional about the invasion of Ukraine principally because they see that Russia is a bully, and people naturally revile bullying - even to the point that their creature comforts might be a bit disturbed when confronting the bully.

I see that as a good thing.

You're throwing shade without presenting "the truth" as you see it. Perhaps if you uncloaked we might better be able to judge what the truth is according to you.

The origin of the energy crisis is very clear: Germany's leaders have been instrumental in tying the cart to the horse of Russian energy for decades to the loud, repeated warnings of others. This is a crisis largely self-inflicted.

Medieval mentality is what I'd use to describe Putin's belief in conquest as an acceptable act of negotiation in the 21st century. It is not. Humanity deserves better than people who believe in annexing their neighbors. Strong, unified condemnation is how the world says no, we do not accept.

EDIT: here is just a taste of how Russians do war: they've turned Bakhmut into Mordor [1]. That is a medieval mentality.

[1] https://libreddit.tiekoetter.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/xh...

Self inflicted for sure but what is the alternative? The US simply invades when they want/need something. The EU cannot, for a plethora of reasons.

Resources is a zero sum game despite what the propaganda says

The comment section of every article about the energy crisis, as well as the counter of every bar, has a few people going the exact route of "we never voted for fighting for Ukraine, they're far away, this is all USA using us as pawn, why would we be cold for them, etc..." Some of those people might actually be real humans as opposed to Russian bots.

So far, they seem to be a minority. The hardliners wanting us to go all in the fight are an even smaller minority. The vast majority are attentist (as usual), and governments (at least mine) are printing all the money they can to pay for energy bills, to avoid reaching a tipping point of discontentment.

I agree with you that Putin might have underestimated the capacity of EU members to support each other and Ukraine against his game of on and off with gas.

I also would not cry victory against "General Winter" on the 19th of September.

General Winter's older name is King Boras.

> He doesn't know Europeans at all.

A few days ago I walked past very loud protests of people demanding peace and good relationships with Russia, in Vienna.

If I have learned anything about the last 6 years of listening to the increasingly unhinged contigent of paranoid Americans, it is not to overindex on how loud a position is.

That is how it works.

That’s what we assume will work when we apply sanctions on Russia.

If it was less serious, if it wasn’t in our faces that innocent people were dying, if it was something “far away” and “complicated” and not so one-sided. It would work.

Some (perhaps most) people are extremely selfish, even when it’s detrimental to themselves; you see it all the time with people not leaving enough space to collect luggage at the baggage claim at the airport, meaning everyone can’t see their bags and they can’t retrieve them without a kerfuffle anyway, or in the same way that everyone rushes to get off of a plane even when they prevent someone else from leaving who then will also be unable to leave causing an awkward deadlock.

People are gloriously selfish, and if you hit them in a place that affects them directly: they will turn.

The only reason we’re not is because it’s too close and too devastating for us to turn our eyes away.

You list several examples where people are selfish. In many cases, the selfishness is not inherent in people, it is a combination of the setup of the system and social norms.

Using your "boarding a plane" example. Compare boarding a Ryan Air flight from Frankfurt/Hahn to a Lufthansa flight from Frankfurt am Main. Specifically these two, because Germany still has a somewhat cohesive culture/cultural identity, and one which values taking care of the community over self (for example, at dinner, you ALWAYS pour water/wine for others before you fill your own glass).

Ryan air. No reserved seats. Pushing, shoving, anger, aggression-- really ugly selfish behavior.

Lufthansa. Reserved seats and gate crew controlling boarding. Orderly lines, no stress, people smile and let the families with children go ahead. I won't call it selfless altrusism, but it is a big step up.

Swedish airports (Arlanda/Stockholm at least) paint a big yellow line about 1 meter back from the baggage belt, and people stand behind the line. Not everyone, but when someone breaks this rule they get socially disapproving looks from the others.

There are two nash equilibriums. When the majority of society shows respect for others, you have a really pleasant society where showing respect/care matters. Freeloaders need to be strongly discouraged, because in the short term freeloading is "optimal". You'll get your bag faster, you'll get the seat you want on the Ryan Air flight.

There is a tipping point when too many people start to freeload, happens at around 5-8%, and the system slips into the other nash equilibrium where everyone selfishly tries to grab for themself. Makes for a hellish society.

The tragedy is that it is very hard to move from the selfish society to the caring society.

For further reference, the googleable terms are "high/low trust society".

I’m not sure it’s as cut and dry as that. I flew from Munich to Copenhagen on Friday with Lufthansa.

I was on an aisle seat and was deadlocked twice while leaving the plane, there were also people crowding the luggage conveyor belt, which is why those examples come to mind.

It’s not about cheap vs expensive or culture vs nature: humans have the capacity to be altruistic, but it seems quite common to be selfish.

no, it is exactly culture vs nature.

we can cultivate a high trust society in which altrusism is the norm, or we can cultivate a low trust society where selfishness is the norm.

I chose the airport examples to match the parent observations. I've seen other examples, for example driving patterns. I remember the one summer (actually about a 2 week period) when Minnesota when from "almost no-one cuts in line to get off the freeway" to "everyone tries to push their way through traffic". And just like that, 30 years of high trust is gone.

The famous Marshmallow Test. Do the kids have high trust or low trust in the authority figure to give them 2 marshmallows?

On a positive example, the (US) military puts a lot of emphasis on high-trust.

We are sadly living in an age where the increasing power of money (as "portable reputation") vs reputation based on people respecting what you've contributed to society heavily rewards low trust. Because it doesn't matter as much how you got the money, it just matters that you have it. That, plus the unequal wealth distribution, creates envy and distrust.

And money scales to current population levels. Personal reputation does not.

"The famous Marshmallow Test. Do the kids have high trust or low trust in the authority figure to give them 2 marshmallows?"

Not a good example as those were about the child having the discipline to wait the needed time for the second marshmallow. Trust wasn't measured. You can argue that the kid needs trust to get to the discipline part, but then you're not talking about that experiment anymore, and the burden of proof increases significantly.

Also it has been debunked as an indicator of discipline and later succes in life, and has now become a famous example of the reproduction problem psychology is reckoning with. I would just generally stay away from it to proof a point. It will only weaken your position if someone familiar with it.

Sorry for being off topic here, but it's popular use is starting to irk me

And how do you cultivate a high trust society? I’d argue: “propaganda” — aka publicly-funded social-positive television (TikTok?) videos like Sesame Street; pro-social school/classroom programming; worker safety standard posters and helpline numbers; a ton of messaging about how to behave and how to expect others to behave, about safety, about support, about good decisions (buckle up!), etc.

We have to invest in our society.

Although I agree in the basis, it is more complex than just selfishness.

In this war we have already been primed and aligned. Europe has been effectively aligned with Ukraine, whether it was through propaganda or plain high quality media coverage. So at the very least we will be sad to see Ukraine fall. On top of that we have been thoroughly informed that Russia is a threat to the EU, and Russia has done nothing but confirm that belief.

Besides being selfish we are self preserving. And we'd rather be cold and dropped down a couple notches economically, than have our entire union be threatened by some kleptocracy.

Most people would probably be ok with passively waiting for Ukraine to fall, and being cold while doing so, as well as reinstating relations with Russia after the war is over. But I think if EU leadership decides action is needed and we need a more active hand, it will receive majority support from the populace.

The distance from Paris to Berlin is longer than Berlin to Lviv in Ukraine. Something that is often forgotten it seems.

The European Union has legitimate territorial security interests and a expansionist empire right next door that is encroaching on your borders isn't something the EU leadership likes to have around.

Considering that I doubt passively waiting for Ukraine to fall was never on the menu. Instead I expect the military and financial help for Ukraine to further increase as it is way cheaper to finance someone else to fight the empire next door than having to beef up your own border security.

There are certainly enough useful idiots around that are clamoring for cheap gas at any price but I do not have the impression that they get a lot of traction. I saw some numbers the other day that 70% of the German population agrees that supporting Ukraine is important, even if it means higher energy prices/colder times in winter. Only the voters of the far right party AfD thought it a sensible policy to drop Ukraine. Not surprising really for Moscow's fifth column.

I'm sorry but you're wrong. Only 46% of Germans want to stick to the plan of not using gas from Russia's new Northstream 2 pipeline when things will get more tough in the winter: https://www.stern.de/politik/deutschland/forsa-blitzumfrage-...

Most of the proponents of giving in to Putin's tempting offer are coming from the right populist AFD party or from former East Germany.

How on earth would they do that. The pipeline isn't even finished and work was halted quite a while ago. It an easy statement without actual probability of happening anytime soon.

I think the following poll is more relevant here:

https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/220715-politbarometer...

https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/politbarometer-union-...

70% say that we should still support Ukraine even with high energy prices. And this value is stable so far.

The Nordstream 2 issue is more complex, and I don't think the people answering the poll fully understand it. I also don't know how exactly it was worded in your poll. Opening NS2 would not actually change anything, we already have enough pipelines for all the gas from Russia. But it would appear as if Germany was giving in to Russian demands, that we let Russia yank us around with obviously untrue claims about why NS1 is not delivering gas. NS2 is a political issue and a very touchy subject for our allies, which is why it's dead and Germany won't revive it, that would be a dipomatic catastrophe.

Germans think that they are rich enough to save the world. The same thing was visible in 2015 during the refugee crisis. The problem this winter may be not enough gas, and the high gas bills for the gas that we do use, will hit next year.

From your source: "The proposal [to open Northstream 2] is rejected by a majority (53 per cent), but just over a third would be in favour."

It's not just "killing ukrainians". By invading Ukraine, Putin threatens Europe. In his list of countries he thinks should be under Russian control, there are many EU countries: the Baltic states, Poland, Slovenia, etc. The invasion of Ukraine is an existential threat for the EU so it's not something on which it can back down if it has any sense.

To me it's more that Russia has committed an extremely autocracy-typical error - bad information, overemphasis on territory due to reliance on resource economy, underestimating the enemy resolve - and since we've lived for many decades under the threat of the UdSSR, this is ... well, revenge would be the wrong word. I think everybody was content to let Russia be an inoffensively harmless behemoth. But if it's going to go back to its old games, and set itself up for such an opening embarrassment as it has, I think everybody is very willing to let it bleed basically arbitrarily - to some limit, since Ukraine is willing to foot the bill in bodies. So even if it hurts us economically, as long as it hurts Russia more, that's fine.

This is how you stand up to a bully. Every child knows this instinctively. Putin overplayed, and now he gets to stew in it.

> There is no way people would say, "We are cold so it is fine to kill Ukrainians."

If I take a look at twitter, there are people saying exactly that [2]. Not using that phrasing, of course, but there people, even politicians (mostly from the left [0] and right [1] end of the spectrum), who demand the end of sanctions against Russia so we can have cheap gas again.

[0] https://www.sahra-wagenknecht.de/de/article/3189.hebt-die-sa...

[1] https://www.merkur.de/politik/afd-chef-tino-chrupalla-ukrain...

[2] https://twitter.com/GBri1208/status/1571227979266531328

But it is fine killing 14k peoples in the Donbass over 8 years ?

And it is fine killing russians for you I suppose ? Because "they are the bad guys".

And maybe you are okay to kill peoples in middle east, because they need "democraty", they have "terrorists", and their leader is a "dictator".

The very core of who we are ? Brainwashed. That's what we are.

> But it is fine killing 14k peoples in the Donbass over 8 years?

I know this statement was being repeated in Russian state TV. But the sole blame for these deaths is with Putin, because he started the killing in 2014, just like he did in 2022.

Of course I don't want Russian soldiers to die, these are human beings with families etc. (although some of them seem like soulless beasts, I hope that's minority). This doesn't change the fact that it's Putin who sent them to death, not Ukrainians. None of them would have died if you hadn't attacked Ukraine.

> There is no way people would say, "We are cold so it is fine to kill Ukrainians."

Plenty of people do. Plenty of people aren't even waiting until they're code, they just say "We might be cold later, so it's fine to kill Ukrainians."

Hell, many even say it's Ukrainian's own fault that they're getting killed for resisting, and our fault for enabling them by sending them weapons.

Putin is counting on the rest of the world to be predominantly a bunch of immoral, spineless cowards, and he's not even that far off with that assumption.

Europeans slept quite soundly for 40 years when it was Muslims being killed for oil.

Give it one good cold winter and Ukrainians will also become sub-humans.

That's what Putin thinks at least.

> Europeans slept quite soundly for 40 years when it was Muslims being killed for oil.

This is simply not true. When Bush decided to invade Iraq, there were biggest anti-war protests in European (and possibly world) history, gathering millions (not thousands) of people in practically all major European cities. It was wrong then, it is wrong now. We didn't "sleep quite soundly."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War

Exactly. And as a response to the well intended criticism, especially to the one from France, there was a USA boycott against French products. There was even a proposal to rename French Fries to Freedom Fries... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fries

But this must have slipped Muslim extremists' attention because France got their share of terrorist attacks afterwards anyway.

Why did you think I was talking about Middle Eastern Muslims and not African Muslims?

Just look at French involvement in Africa: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_involving_Fran...

What did those protests achieve?

Is anyone in Europe? Is it true that the media said that the electricity price there has risen dozens of times?

Ita here, we got a 3x increase w.r.t. sep 2021

I'm in Sweden where electricity rates have gone up markedly, especially in in the lower half of the country. Average rates have gone up ~300%-400%, peak rates up to ~2500%. Those peak rates drive up the daily rates for those who have such a contract while those who have hourly rates can end up paying more than 10 kr ( ~$1) per kWh while the rate is up there - a period of a few hours around 08.00 in the morning, 17.00 in the afternoon. Where the rates end up depends on the demand from "the continent" - mostly Germany - as well as the availability of wind to fill in the gap left by the "green" party being responsible for shutting down half of the nuclear capacity. The oil-fired peak plant in Karlshamn has been running more hours this year than in the last 10 years combined, burning up to 140.000 litres of heavy fuel oil per hour.

Interestingly that peak power plant has recently released its financial figures for last year [1]. It made a profit of 297 million kr (~$28 million) while consuming 30.000 tons of fuel oil, generating ~110 GWh. This roughly translates to ~$1 profit per kg of fuel oil burned, ~$2.70 profit per generated kWh. This shows the discrepancy between the actual cost of electricity and the market rates.

[1] https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/vinsten-for-karlshamnsverke...

Putin tells Europe: if you want gas then open Nord Stream 2

"President Vladimir Putin on Friday denied Russia had anything to do with Europe's energy crisis, saying that if the European Union wanted more gas it should lift sanctions preventing the opening of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.

Speaking to reporters after the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit in Uzbekistan, Putin blamed what he called "the green agenda" for the energy crisis, and insisted that Russia would fulfil its energy obligations.

"The bottom line is, if you have an urge, if it's so hard for you, just lift the sanctions on Nord Stream 2, which is 55 billion cubic metres of gas per year, just push the button and everything will get going," Putin said."

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russias-putin-says-m...

It's kinda hard to take the proposal seriously when Gazprom has been cutting the amount of gas transmitted through Nord Steam 1 throughout the year. Last I heard was that Nord Steam 1 was delivering 25% of its intended capacity.

He is obviously lying. Russia willingly cut supplies on all other pipeline to well under 20% of usual flow [1], and even those 20% are there to keep the system running. Nord Stream 2 was never put in production.

Anyone vested in the topic would understand that he says nonsense.

However, the TV audience back home sees a picture of a confident leader.

He is also hoping that fringe influencers around the world pick his lies in their agenda.

[1] https://berthub.eu/gazmon/

Alternatively, "Putin declined further financing of his war from Europe, having filled coffers, sending climate disaster ravaged Europe into reluctant fossil energy rampdown".

Who is at War exactly ?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream_2#US_sanctions_and...

[2] > Alternatives to Russian supplies—including LNG from the U.S. and other countries

Depends who you ask:

Russia: NATO is at war with us. We're not at war with anyone cause it's a special military operation

Everyone else: Russia and Ukraine are at war

> Depends who you ask:

Well, you will hear some opinion, based on some perspective. Almost always it is not whole truth, but a subset of facts.

But there is so much more at play.

What bothers me is how western news manipulative and no one really notice. News giving everyone a subset of facts, while omitting others, not painting the entire truth. They are not lying, but at the same time manipulate opinion of a large population.

Like lying by omission, or relaying some false news, and apologizing a day or two later (discretly when the harm is already done).

It is pretty obvious our media (at least in France) serve some agenda when you look at their finances. The rich guys that detain theses medias know how to make money. Meaning it is worth keeping these medias despite what it cost them each year.

And why would you keep an unprofitable business ? Unless it serves them in another manner...

What do you mean?

Le Monde, the most popular newspaper, which is billionaire owned is profitable. Le Figaro, owned by Dassault (industrial group), second best, is also profitable.

TF1, most popular private TV news network, owned by Bouygues (industrial group), is also profitable. M6, second best (among the private ones), is also profitable.

Le Canard enchaîné and Mediapart, two of the most hard hitting investigative medias out there, are independent.

All of this is easily found public information, which conflicts with the picture you're trying to paint. Of course there are rich people pushing their agenda with media (Bolloré pushed the far-right Zemmour really hard), but it's not the norm and it's false to say that French media is kept afloat by rich people's money to push an agenda when they're all profitable.

What important piece of the puzzle are western media omitting that makes this not a war between Russia and Ukraine? What is the whole truth, according to you? Ironically, you're the one omitting right now.

I can only recommend doing your own research, cross language barrier, examine the situation from as many points as possible, we have all the tools to do this. I do not feel comfortable here anymore to discuss this because of downvotes.

I would the say the opposite is true, the western media is more than happy to discuss and (over) analyse every little detail of information that quite freely flows into our media machines from many different sources.

We agonize over failures and freely discuss tactics and events, report explicitly and react to horrors occurring, sometimes so much that we get a bit desensitized over time.

It could be argued that we sometimes omit too little. Unlike in Russia now where telling the truth can get you a criminal record and land you in jail.

Who's is sending weapons to Ukraine for free ? Who is putting military base around the country ? Who's putting "defensive" missile launcher around the country ?

It is not just Russia VS Ukraine.

> Who's is sending weapons to Ukraine for free ? Who is putting military base around the country ? Who's putting "defensive" missile launcher around the country?

All of this is irrelevant.

> It is not just Russia VS Ukraine.

Yes. Yes it is. Russian soldiers are shooting at Ukrainian soldiers, and Ukrainian soldiers are shooting at Russian soldiers. That's it. No NATO soldiers are shooting at or being shot at by anyone. Because NATO is not a party in this war. Russia and Ukraine are.

>Russian soldiers are shooting at Ukrainian soldiers, and Ukrainian soldiers are shooting at Russian soldiers. That's it.

This is a gross oversimplification given that most soldiers don't do any shooting at all.

If NATO was at war with Russia, it would be absolutely clear for everyone.

Iran and North Korea help Russia with military supplies, and there is no question if Ukraine is at war with them.

Countries tend to help their friends during war.

> no question if Ukraine is at war with them

Of course there is a question. The whole point is that "at war" isn't a binary state, hence "who is doing the shooting" being a gross oversimplification.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com