They deliver oil and gas, we deliver carrots so they dont starve.
I think the carrot Russia wants is cash. Starvation in Russia requires freakish levels of malicious incompetence (I know it has happened...) Mollisols are the best farming soil there is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_science#/media/File:Globa...
This soil map may also offer some insight into why Russia wants to take Ukraine so badly. That's some of the best farmland in the world.
In the turmoil of regime change in Russia production would fall and probably not come back online again for decades
When the wall fell Russian production declined and has never reached its 1980s Peak because of the geography of Russia. In fact I think most of the wells that were turned off at that time have never come back online and recent production increases are due to new infrastructure being built
Countries in the midst of civil war aren't very good at shipping natural gas either. Europe's best hope for not freezing is to go invade Russia, capture the pipelines and gas fields, and staff them with Europeans. Unfortunately this plan has worked out for Europe (and the world) approximately never.
Does somebody have an idea for how reform could occur in a place that has never really been "free"?
They need to become unable to support a nuclear arsenal.
China is the new Russia anyway.
In terms of raw statistics - i.e. numbers of innocent people murdered in illegal war - I'd really like to understand which nation you think it is?
The more unstable Russia becomes, the more the value in reducing how much of a threat it is. Even if other threats remain.
Given that Germany is now turning coal plants back on to cope, I can't even see that there is alignment with the environment even in the short term.
However it is a good trend in longer term - I don't think that there is desire for a long term "turn back to coal", it's just short-term expedience until a better alternative can be built up - after all, those coal plants exist already. Yes it's done under difficult conditions now as a consequence of not doing it under good conditions earlier.
it is, as I said above, not an either-or. The environmental benefits (which might be a good step, but will not be in themselves enough to "save" anyone) are outside of the consideration, and not the matter at hand. I thought that was clearly phrased.
Rather, removing Russia, or other petrostates ability to blackmail with energy supply, makes them less likely to warmonger. Russia's warmongering is very much supported with oil and gas leverage - i.e. threats of "don't interfere or you'll go cold". Like the other reply says - if bullies no longer have a hold over you, you'll get less bullying. It's a poor assumption that Russian leadership will be better or even different in nature any time soon, Putin or not. And it's good for European domestic politics as well, to be less concerned with appeasing other powers, especially dictators.
They're not capable of doing anything to save the environment - in fact it's likely they're a net-negative. Russia is still selling that energy to someone - right now China and India - and it's unlikely the new buyers will be taking the same steps to burn the natural gas as cleanly or efficiently as western Europe would.