The renewable build out is what I would imagine is one of the causes of this, besides the geopolitical and keys to dictatorship angle.

Within 5 years, 10 years at most, Europe will have transitioned far enough to renewables that energy is a lost cause as geopolitical tool. Then Russia truly is screwed.

Some of the former countries in the Soviet bloc which more readily faced this issue of Russia trying to extend it's sphere of influence to them they already solved it through more costly means.

Lithuania and Poland did not build LNG terminals because they provide cheap gas, they built them as a costly hedge against Russian use of gas supplies for political purpose like seen with Ukraine in 2005, 2007 and 2009. Which people seem to have forgotten.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005%E2%80%932006_Russia%E2%80...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_ga...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_dis...

You keep saying "political tool", "geopolitical tool", but the articles you link to don't really support your own point:

> Naftogaz admitted it used some gas intended for other European countries for domestic needs

Translation: Ukraine was stealing gas that was transported to Europe, and they admitted it. Is that "political"? or just plain theft maybe?

Second article: > There is no consensus amongst analysts on who bore the most responsibility for the crisis

On top of that, the gas pipeline worked without fail for all this time, even through the peak of the conflict in 2014-2015. Why hasn't been this powerful geopolitical weapon invoked then?

Read the epilogue. During the Crimean annexation there was a lot of issues. [1]

Leading to the ultimate cutoff from Russian gas in November 2015. Ukraine now buys all gas as reverse flow from European Union states, while still of course having Russia pay transit fees for gas destined to Europe going through the country. [2]

Therefore everyone except Russia is happy, they lost the political tool of the gas supply in Ukraine. That is why Kyiv is not shut off today.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_dis...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_dis...

> Ukraine now buys all <Russian> gas as reverse flow from European Union states

Ok let me get this straight. Russia has been supplying up to 39% of all of Europe's natgas nonstop since 1973, throughout the Cold War, collapse of the USSR, 2014, and including the current everyday Ukrainian gas, which is also being supplied by Russia without fail (then reversed from Europe, to avoid outright theft), but somehow it's a very dangerous weapon. Ok.

Russia needs that European money too. It's 35% of their GDP and selling to Europe is more lucrative than selling to allies.

They currently have record gas prices, so it doesn't look like they mind selling gas. They sell gas to theirb close allies at ( almost) cost to reduce unrest.

Peak of the conflict was obviously not in 2015...

There are multiple reasons why he didn't do it sooner.

Here's one: https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/foreign-exchange-reserve....

Oh, but they do! The gas reserves have never been lower on the European side of the pipelines. That makes no financial sense at this time of high prices.

Yes. It’s a deterrent and a financial tool. “I supply you now, but what if I cut it off?” Also, gas means legitimate money moving in Europe to buy people with, look at the history of French or German politicians working for Russian gas interests. “Don’t do anything stupid and there’s a cozy consultancy position open for you at Gazprom”.

That argument applies to almost all trade in the world. China exports $452B worth of goods into the US, we should eliminate all this trade since it's a deterrent, otherwise we live every day under the threat of them cutting off the (clearly non-trivial and essential) exports at the most inopportune moment.

Oh but there were and are talks about exactly this Chinese point (also remember this guy Trump?). So we can keep our Russian worries as well.

Not to mention chip factories.

> Then Russia truly is screwed.

Too early to say that so definitively. Russia is banking on a close relationship with China in that time frame. Looking into the future from here in 2022, that doesn't seem like such a bad bet.

Definitely, the problem is: What does Russia provide for China?

For energy, China is also all in on renewables. See this chart for what they are committed to building.

https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/average-annua...

What is the status of Russian exports outside of energy?

China is all in on renewables but they are still building new coal plants today. They need all the energy they can get to power their economy. Russia can build energy pipelines to China at will, and there is plenty of time over the next 10 years to wean themselves off Germany and Europe's dependence and ramp up China exports.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/12/china-co...

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

Timely joint announcement: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/exclusive-russia-...

From your timely joint announcement: "...to settle in euros."

Uh Oh!

Imagine China having an army / contractors which can actually perform operations and isn't scared of losses.

China is expanding in every type of energy they can get, including renewables. However, tanks and jets run on naphtha.

> Within 5 years, 10 years at most, Europe will have transitioned far enough to renewables that energy is a lost cause as geopolitical tool. Then Russia truly is screwed.

Genuine question, how can Europe transition to renewables until we solve storage at city scale? Because to me until future tech the trajectory looks more like gas will be the ~50% baseline for decades to come (or nuclear).

It's not about transitioning to 100% renewable in this context, but about having a good enough supply of renewable energy to be more independent.

Are you talking about any specific part of Europe? In Sweden I think natural gas is supposedly something like 3% of totalt energy expenditure, although it is important for heating in some areas and dearth would affect that a lot i assume.

With current tech you can get fairly easily (not necessarily cheap) to 80% renewables penetration in Europe. The rest of the 20% could then be covered by coal, gas, biomass and nuclear.

Mind you if the goal is to get Russia out of the European gas market, by greatly increasing the amount of renewables we use the rest could be supplied by LNG + Norwegian/Dutch/English fields.

Or they replace enough coal and nuclear plants with wind and solar they are completely reliant on Russian nat gas and peaker plants to make sure they don't have intermittent power outages.

5 to 10 years? I doubt it.

I think Putin knows that he has them and can cause them a lot of pain. France has been wise enough to stick with nuclear which gives them an edge over other Euro countries.

There needs to be an escalation path. Sanctions should always be able to get worse, or else Russia would no longer have anything to lose, and Europe won't have anything left to threaten with. Once in that situation it would be a recipe for a hot war between NATO and Russia.

Russia knows exactly how to play this game though, especially with the cooperation of China. They know Germans, in particular, would rather give up all of Eastern Europe than risk harming their own economy.

This time even China isn't on Russia's side, though: https://www.wsj.com/articles/behind-chinas-warning-against-a...

I think China (with the exception of Taiwan) likes to win economically and apply that sort of pressure. They don't want an invasion happy country sitting just north of them.

Of course they're on Russia's side. China knows they're next in line.

Are you sure? Someone German would have to do the cheap labor in that case.

The idea of an EU without a mutual defense treaty is so absurd

The idea of an EU defense treaty is also redundant after NATO.

Not true when two of the three muscular nato powers aren't in the EU

EU have the resources and manpower to be muscular.

Indeed, they could. But they don't have the structures in place to act it.

The idea of a NATO is redundant after the end of USSR.

A defense treaty is never redundant. Case to the point.

Considering one of the "official" casus belli is that Ukraine might join NATO, is it?

That is quite clearly not true

there already is one

but Putin would probably be pretty safe to assume that the germans wouldn't risk a war for a small part of Estonia/Lithuania (and then another small part, and so-on)

(and that's why no-one outside of france and germany wants the EU army to replace NATO)

> but Putin would probably be pretty safe to assume that the germans wouldn't risk a war for a small part of Estonia/Lithuania (and then another small part, and so-on)

Right. He's been carefully boiling that particular frog for a very long time.

The idea of an EU is absurd.

For the European continent to keep up with countries like the USA and China it makes absolute sense and I don't see how anyone could see it any other way other than Russia or a similar country that would love to see a weak European continent that would be easy pickings.

The axiom "we are stronger together" is only true if participants all want the same. That is not the case at all. They all have different priorities; different geopolitical views. Are you telling me that Israel should merge with the 20 states around it, or that Singapore should do the same, just because "it is small" ?

The idea that even two countries would ever "want the same" is absurd. They just need to have close enough interests. Most EU countries do, believe it or not.

Even the most pro-europe people here in europe would disagree and consistently complained about never finding consensus (needed by the 27 member states as per EU treaties). Eastern countries want 0 migrants. France, Germany, want plenty. Poor countries want common debt. Northern countries do not. France tends to be less Nato-aligned than Poland or others, who will sign-off anything Washington says. Germany and Netherlands want austerity. The "PIGS" do not. Germany wants commercial partnership to develop the European GPS. France does not: that explain why there is still no European GPS. Germany wants a strong euro that suits its economy as a massive exporter. This has destroyed the competitiveness of Spain, Italy, France. France, Italy, Spain, want an EU policy which favors their agriculture. Northern countries could not care less. France is a nuclear power, with a massive nuclear electric parc, which it wants to favor. Germany wants windturbines everywhere. I could go on like that for pages. In fact, studies have found than the eurozone is one of the least homogeneous economical zone.

Russia is stuck playing the mid 20th century game

If you believe that something has changed in the methods of global politics since the mid of 20th century, then you haven't been curious enough to look at the state of the world beyond convenient western news coverage. It's still the rule of powerful and able, and it's not the power to produce and create, unfortunately.

The states who play these games have terrible economies to show for it.

doesn't seem to hurt Saudis much as long as their ruling classes can arrange meetings in the cabinets of the US and the UK governments.

You seem to be missing something key to this discussion.

The game changed in the mid 20th century with the rise of mutually assured destruction.

Isn't saying that energy sector won't be touched a few days before Putin's latest declaration showing our hand too much though.

Don't those natural gas pipelines go through the Ukraine? Regardless of how they get destroyed, when they do, Russia will have everything it needs to justify a full invasion.

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/photo/europe-map/

Wasn't that the whole point of NS2, to have a pipeline that doesn't go through Ukraine?

This map is not current. It lacks NS1 leading from Wyborg, Russia, most eastern Baltic Sea to Lubmin, Germany, since 2011, right next to Rostock in the western Baltic Sea(in the scale of that map). And NS2 mostly parallel to it, with the exception of starting in Ust-Luga, Russia.

Maybe try https://www.gie.eu/publications/maps/ for a more complete view.

Right. And that is why many in germany oppose it. With the recent developments, it might be dead completely.

> that is why many in germany oppose it

Hm... why? Because the Germans, out of goodness of their hearts, want the Russians to keep dumping the annual $1.5bil+ transit fees into Ukraine? It's the same exact dependency on the same exact gas, just delivered through a bunch of countries each grabbing a cut, instead of directly.

Maybe because some of them (like here and everywhere) put sometimes ideology before the wallet. We're to see though how many and how consequently.

Easy to say for those who can absorb the higher energy cost. Millions of Germans can't.

I expect that Germany (the state) will shoulder some of those costs. But I'm not a German so I'll have to see what happens, because right now the project was officially put on ice.

It’s already complete, Germany is also opposing any economic sanctions that target Russia’s energy sector.

NS2 has always been a carrot that Russia was never going to get.

Sanctions obviously isn’t a viable deterrent against Russia, so sanctions at this point is just giving the optics of action.

The underlying problem is no doubt the dependency on Russia for energy. Europe will have to fix this problem as soon as possible.

Sanctions targeting oligarch wealth (making it impossible to move more money out of Russia, or targeting Russian businesses in which they hold stakes etc.) might well work. As would international restrictions on the movements of oligarchs, politicians and their families.

It seems to me that this move from Putin is rather more unhinged than normal, and a lot of people around him will be looking for the exits. Denying them the exits so they have to stay home and do something about it might be a better strategy.

I think we will see some quite inventive sanctions rolling out from tomorrow.

They'd be doing him a favour if they target these oligarchs, and that's why they haven't done it yet. https://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/20/putin-urges-billionaires-to-...

The sanctions won't let them bring that money back at all -- they will likely prevent large transactions full stop, so oligarch money can't return.

It will stop them exfiltrating further wealth, and that ought to scare them enough when the walls start closing in, as they will.

There will come a time when Putin threatens an escalating global conflict and that is when they will finish him. Perhaps literally.

The extraordinary extent to which huge chunks of London and the political alt-right across Europe and the USA relies on Putin's (and other oligarchs') laundered wealth is really a brake on any ambitions that sanctions will work.

You can't stop Putin's illicit private wealth (he's probably the richest man in the world) spreading through the West because it already did.

There will be no co-ordinated all-party pushback against Russia in the USA or the UK, because big chunks of the political system of both are aware of the side on which their bread has been buttered for some time.

And a lot of alt-right figures who have spent years saying that it's a lie that they have Russian support, but at the same time that Putin is a strong leader the West can learn from, are either going to go silent, obstruct or outright attack any sanctions measures.

I don't just mean the obvious people. It's going to be very, very illuminating.

And that is before you look at the soft power issue of, well, exported power in Europe.

Aren't sanctions rather used to punish the people, until they rise up against the leader we want to get rid of?

In the specific case of Russia, and other examples in the last several decades, there have been specific attempts to direct most of the pain at the rich and powerful classes in the target countries. You could argue (somewhat cynically but perhaps correctly) that these represent the only demographic capable of pushing change.

Put more succinctly than I managed!

Yes and no -- current sanctions against Russia are aimed at illicit wealth, and they likely still will be.

Western governments will probably try not to use sanctions that primarily hurt the Russian people, because there is little hope that will work; Putin has spent a decade building an explicitly backward-looking, history-whitewashing kind of nationalism, and people might tire of that, sure, but he's also been very good at very publicly helping his opponents more fully experience the view from high windows.

Remember Don Jr's meeting with the Russians that was supposedly about adoption? It was actually the Magnitsky Act the Russians really wanted to talk about (they want it gone). He said as much himself, and it's clear that even the people advising the Trump campaign were decidedly chilly on the idea of getting rid of it.

Global Magnitsky legislation is why Russia is upping the ante. While I'm no scholar of it, I would expect the West to start with strengthened Magnitsky-type sanctions that prevent oligarchs from getting their money out before things go bad.

Because it is the oligarchs who can uproot Putin most quickly.

Putin is personally weak and isolated at this point -- clearly either clinically vulnerable or otherwise terrified of catching Covid, and distrustful of everyone around him. He's clearly acting more emotionally and less rationally.

Sanctions that target -- or isolate -- the wealth of his closest circle of oligarchs are more likely to get somewhere, because they will gnaw away at his sense of invulnerability.

Yes, and that has never actually worked, so recently there's been a change of tactic and new sanctions mostly target rich and powerful people and organisations.

> The extraordinary extent to which huge chunks of London and the political alt-right across Europe and the USA relies on Putin's (and other oligarchs') laundered wealth

in what way exactly is it more extraordinary than all these alliances with middle-eastern "governments" (or rather ruling classes) that are known to commit atrocities of all sorts, including local invasions and coups?

Well there's a lot of that money in London too.

But a fifth of the total of unexplained wealth coming from Russia -- a country that is not an absolute monarchy, should not have a "ruling family", and is down in the mid-seventies in the rankings of GDP per capita -- is kind of extraordinary.

This is not a wealthy small monarchy or a tiny little dictatorship, it's a large, poor country with an extraordinary, demonstrated level of kleptocratic exfiltration of wealth. A lot of it comes to London, and a lot of it comes to (mostly but not exclusively alt-right) populist, disruptive politicians and media figures across the West, through a variety of influence channels.

We're going to find out who those people are; some of them will surprise us, and some of them will not.

Finally, the topic is Ukraine, and unless I'm mistaken, kleptocratic middle-eastern monarchies aren't that interested in it.

This is often wildly overblown. Of 700 offshore companies found to own UK property, only 5% of them are controlled by Russians. Also of 94,000 properties registered as owned by foreign companies, only 4 were Russian.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/60348046

Bilateral trade is more significant, uk companies own over £23bn in assets in Russia, and total Russian investment in UK companies comes to £11bn, but let’s put that in context. Russia isn’t close to being in the to 10 contries that trade and invest in the UK.

I said "London", not the UK as a whole.

An enormous number of high-value residential properties in London lie empty because they exist only as a store of wealth for Russian oligarchs.

Something like a fifth or more of the £4.5bn of likely illicit -- literally unexplained -- wealth stored in residential property in London is from Russian oligarchs. It's a huge deal because it is targeted influence; big landlords back the tories. Any really serious attempt to hit that wealth will see pushback in private.

https://bylinetimes.com/2022/02/18/startling-facts-about-lon...

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/oligarchs-and-unexplai...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35757265

This is a surprisingly pernicious influence on our politics. The current government have sat on a completed report into Russian influence in British politics for some time.

> An enormous number of high-value residential properties in London lie empty because they exist only as a store of wealth for Russian oligarchs.

Which is a shame because it would be better if they were put yo use, but it’s not a threat to the UK economy. No jobs depend on those properties. If there is a war and sanctions, we’ll, that’s why those oligarchs own those properties, to protect their wealth from Putin. They’re hardly going to sell up and move that wealth back to Russia, and if they did, so what?

These sorts of Russian backup plan investments are always trotted out as this spooky big dependency we have in Russia. It’s utterly bogus, fear mongering founded on a fundamental misconception of how economics and finance actually work. Hardly surprising as it mostly comes from Marxists. We do have economic ties with Russia through UK companies doing business there, that’s where the risk is because that’s where the jobs and investments in jeopardy are.

Money laundering is money laundering, so matter what jobs it might create. And the Russian oligarchy mob is a reality as well. So I'm not sure what kind of point is followed here... that one should accept their illegal stuff in their countries because, uh, whatever waves hand?

Rather than inventing an agenda for me from whole cloth, you could try just reading the comments I’m replying to and refuting instead to understand hat I’m saying in context.

Maybe I’m wrong, perhaps there’s stuff I’m missing. That’s fine, but please don’t just flat out slag me off like that please.

So already today there are criticisms of how weak Boris's sanctions are:

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1496140100316639247

He's also blunderingly claimed Roman Abramovich is subject to sanctions, to make a load of noise -- and Abramovich has clearly threatened to sue, so he has desperately retracted.

His sanctions are as I expected, but thinner -- some notable banks, three oligarchs who may or may not have much money in the UK.

They will clearly let some people move money out of the country, and the Tories are already on the back foot, including from The Spectator(!)

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/britain-s-sanctions-are-...

https://twitter.com/PeterStefanovi2/status/14963889675157954...

A reminder of who Boris's friendship circle includes, and his willingness to avoid scrutiny on the subject:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/26/boris-johns...

Here is the obvious truth: the London Laundromat is at least a serious enough problem that it casts a shadow over our ruling government and our politics as a whole; enough to question whether it has weakened us in the way the US believes it has.

> we’ll, that’s why those oligarchs own those properties, to protect their wealth from Putin.

By no means all London-investing oligarchs are on the run from Putin; several are close, like Roman Abramovich.

Other oligarchs could well be investing Putin's huge fortune on his behalf. Either way there is considerable concern over the long term corrupting effect of this capital (and its influence over those who cast a blind eye over its arrival, in the Tory party and elsewhere)

> Hardly surprising as it mostly comes from Marxists.

Not sure I bothered replying if this is your angle, mind you.

But here's a non-Marxist view of the threat to sanctions, enforcement, and corrupt influence presented by the London Laundromat:

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

The chair of that committee has announced he would seek election as prime minister if there's a Tory leadership campaign.

Here he is again:

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/uk-stop-russians-launderin...

To quote from that article, it's about Putin-adjacent cash: When the intelligence and security committee released its 2020 Russia report, it concluded - as many campaigners warned - that Russians who owed their fortunes to connections with President Putin and the Kremlin had embedded themselves in London assets using suspect money from the state.

Money is speech, remember. All that cash is influence, it's not just hiding.

Here's the US angle on our situation in the UK:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/russia-ukrai...

Here's the Economist:

https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2022/02/04/...

Here's a discussion of pressure from a Lib Dem peer (hardly Marxist):

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/30/calls-for-uk-t...

The last decade or so hasn't been enough an escalation path?

I think we could start now by freezing ALL known russian oligarch assets in USA, Europe and friendly countries and anywhere else we can persuade countries to do this. They are the only ones who can apply pressure to Putin.

So then it's funny how it's clearly not a huge concern for him right now? I wonder why.

I mean, it's not like he makes today's announcement, and then says, oh snap, I didn't think of all my oligarch friends, they are the only ones that can apply pressure to me, I shall change my mind immediately.

They are the only ones in the country who have any influence on him and his attempts at expansion.

You're talking about possibly a trillion dollars there, much of it very well-embedded and passing through funds from banks like Deutsche.

It would be difficult to do this retrospectively with anything like enough speed to have an effect.

The fresh money they want to funnel out of the country before the roof caves in, yeah. And you can probably carefully target a few oligarch-controlled Russian businesses to make it difficult for them to find further legitimacy in the West. They will start doing that tomorrow, by the looks of it.

And there are probably a few visas that are due to be extended that might come under some scrutiny -- particularly in the UK, Spain and Malta.

Who cares how much it is? Just freeze it. I didn't say sieze it (yet) . This is their fault for coddling a guy who has progressively gotten unbalanced as he's gotten over. I bet Putin won't let any high level person (oligarch) scurry out of the country right now.

I don't mean it's too much money to freeze.

I mean it is too much money to quickly find to put a dent on things, and in most cases it is well-embedded in funds, buildings and and businesses who will be compelled to fight the government for proof.

Even proving that properties in London are owned by oligarchs is difficult.

Sure, there are unexplained wealth order cases in the UK that can be targeted, and a few existing prosecutions maybe, but in most cases this money has gone through some hoops, legitimate and illegitimate, to end up in its final form.

It would take ages; not something you can do quickly enough to stop an invasion because you'd need to show some proof it would have a rapid effect. The speedy thing to do is to block the new flows of cash, the running business and the people.

Hurting and wiping out oligarchs would be a great favor to common Russian folk!

US and Britain promised a lot and delivered practically nothing.

This one is on them. No one even asked them to fight, but they did promise to defend Ukraine in exchange for nukes. So there was zero reason not to hit russia with crippling sanctions a month ago.

But hey, promises are made only to be broken.

So much for the Budapest Memorandum.

There is a major opposition to crippling sanctions from some of the European powers primarily Germany and France.

The US cannot risk implementing sanctions that will not be followed by its partners as at that point it would have to sanction European entities too or back down either way it loses.

Europe opposes sanctions that broadly target the Russian economy especially its energy and financial sectors.

Germany and the rest of Europe is still going to be buying a fuck ton of Russian gas and limiting Russian banks and financial institutions isn’t going to pass Germany as its banks have been issuing a lot of loans to Russian institutions and they still want to get paid.

With Russia’s Escalate to Deescalate doctrine specifically around nuclear weapons any armed conflict is impossible. And since Europe pretty much has its hand in Putin’s trousers sanctions would also be minimal in scope.

In fact I would bet on that no new sanctions would be put forward unless Russia goes outside of the “contested regions”.

The West has pretty much accepted that the “breakaway” regions are now “Western Russian” and Ukraine is going to be completely screwed over by its so call partners just like Georgia.

What are you saying? We flooded Ukraine with weapons. We did the maximum extent possible without actually causing world war 3.

We didn’t, the US has declined transfer of many weapon systems including Patriot and other air defense systems to Ukraine.

The US has supplied them primarily with small arms and man portable anti tank weapons.

The Ukrainian armed forces aren’t rolling in M1 under the cover of Apache gunships and F-35’s…

Even if they had the money for it no one would sell them any weapon systems you can’t pretty much buy on Gunbroker.

The US relies heavily on Russian oil [1]. Why the sole focus on European imports from Russia?

[1] https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/why-is-the-u-s-still-i...

Europe depends on Russian energy to keep the heat on in winter.

US refineries have replaced sanctioned Venezuelan oil with a Russian type bumping them up to a very respectable 10% of oil imports.

The US is also responsible for its own security, not the other way around.

> US refineries have replaced sanctioned Venezuelan oil with a Russian type bumping them up to a very respectable 10% of oil imports.

Nothing but political will prevent US to allow Venezuelan oil back. Also, Iranian oil. Both have similar composition to Russian Urals brand.

If you sanction all around, there will be rebound. Sitting there alone, all the sanctioned sing loudly, AHARRRHARRHARR! Rot on your throne, proudly.

At the same time, the US is energy independent https://news.yahoo.com/u-now-energy-independent-174226538.ht...

Presumably when it comes to a global commodity like oil, all independence means is "potentially capable of supplying enough to meet your own demand".

Even more shocking then that they are buying massive amounts of oil from Russia, thereby filling Putin’s pockets, no?

The US is technically energy independent thanks to shale oil but, unless my knowledge is out of date, the shale business is only dabbled in by the big oil companies that own the vast majority of the big refineries in the US. Shale oil is dominated by smaller more numerous companies, it can scale up and down lightning fast by oil extraction standards, and it needs much less refining than most other sources of oil so the big oil companies import oil from all over to employ the refineries and due to their international entanglements. So there is the strange import export dynamic because there are two camps with broadly different incentives and a really complicated market.

That’s interesting but it doesn’t answer the question why it’s okay for the US to do business with Putin but not for the EU.

If the US sanctions Russian oil, gas prices in America go up slightly, and the difference will be made up by sourcing from other countries or scaling up more shale drilling. Politically speaking, it is something American politicians will be able to risk more than German politicians can risk shutting down something like NS2, since without it and NS (which passes through Ukraine), gas cannot reach Germany, which is why Germany has vehemently opposed sanctions on NS2. Germany hasn't even bothered constructing any LNG terminals[0], something which Poland and Lithuania specifically did in fear of Russian aggression. Yes, there aren't American sanctions on Russian gas/oil yet, but that's something that's entirely able to change.

[0]: 'Plans for construction of first German LNG terminal plagued by delays and uncertainty' https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/plans-construction-firs...

We just use the ones in Belgium and the Netherlands. (Zeebrugge/Rotterdam)

HONK, HONK, PDF-warning! https://www.gie.eu/publications/maps/gie-lng-map/

What do I see? Pipeline to me! Whee!

Singing voice: "So connected, totally unexpected..."

kthxbaiii

You write that without NS and NS2 gas cannot reach Germany. This is incorrect. Only about third of German gas imports are from Russia. 31% are from Norway, 22% from the Netherlands, and the rest from other sources. Gas from Norway and the Netherlands does not enter through either NS or NS2.

Perhaps, but the real question is how easily can Germany make up that difference. From the way German politicians have reacted over the past years on matters pertaining to Russian gas, the implication seems to be that there's a genuine fear that there will either be gas shortages or severe price hikes.

> why it’s okay for the US to do business with Putin but not for the EU.

I was attempting to answer why the US imports Russian oil at all given we have production capacity to meet our needs. The wisdom and morality of doing business with Putin is another matter.

The US is really not reliant on Russian oil or anyones for that matter.

It still imports from Russia but those imports are private deals which are conducted simply due to market conditions.

There is no strategic import of Oil or any other petroleum products from Russia.

Europeans need to proudly wear jackets indoor for a winter to really show some consequences

We should have used the opportunity for something like Minsk II. The current strategy of threats is clearly not working.

European leaders are bought and paid for. The ex-chancellor of Germany is on the board of Rosneft:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-rosneft-board/russ...

The same Chancellor who initiated the German nuclear phaseout, thus embedding European reliance on Russian gas.

His ties are questionable but they would actually be useful instead of the hotshot idiots now putting their weight into the dialogue. At that time the relations to Russia were far better and it would be desirable if they return to that. Especially for safety concerns. But after 9-11 Russia had to be tamed in the context of the war on terror. The connections of Schröder predate that.

Easy answer (benefit of the doubt), they are playing for time till winter passes and less gas is needed to heat the homes.

> response of the european leaders so far

Sorry I’m un-knowledgeable, but what do you say to the following, well-known argument?

“What would USA say if Russia installed missiles in Cuba? / What did Russia say when OTAN envisioned including Ukraine and thus installing missiles there? / Therefore, isn’t the solution to simply abide by the 1991’s USA promise of not taking foothold in the states bordering Russia?” ? I’m unable to judge this idea with my knowledge.

What if people living there _do_ want USA's (or West in general) foothold? Is their opinion less important than some politics done over their shoulders?

There was never such a promise. Russia is not entitled to a "buffer zone" of subdued neighbors.

Obviously not, as very successful anti-nuclear campaigning means all of EU is dependant on russian fossil fuels

Yep, one after another decision reeks of short termism. There's a dictator who believes the world as some zero sum system right at our borders and we are burying our heads in sand.

It seems odd that you use the term "short termism" in connection with a remark about the anti-nuclear movement, one of the major concerns of which has been the the multi-thousand year half life of fission waste.

short termism there is the fear of losing elections due to a misinformed populace. we should have educated people instead and embraced nuclear as the stop gap for the next 100 years while we develop all kinds of other energy tech.

I'm 58. Back at the "height" of the anti-nuclear movement in the UK (which I'd peg at about 1978-1982, that movement was full of educated people who chose to reject nuclear (fission) power.

The fact that you don't agree with them doesn't require you to suggest that they were uninformed or uneducated. I don't agree with you (mostly), but that just means that I've come to different conclusions about what is in reality a complex question.

They are directly guilty for the climate crisis, though. We wouldn’t have so much CO2 in the air if we followed the logical path to almost free electricity from nuclear.

> almost free electricity from nuclear.

It seems that you may have watched a few too many of the early promotional videos of the nascent nuclear industry.

Also, "directly guilty for the climate crisis" seems a little over the top. Sure, the anti-nuclear movement did lead us to generally not go down a path that would have helped avert or at least reduce the climate crisis. But the climate crisis was directly caused by the discovery and subsequent use of fossil fuels, not the anti-nuclear movement. That movement had what it considered a clear and present danger that implied that nuclear was not the right answer to replace fossil fuels. It is not a "logical" path to follow - the decision involves many tradeoffs and value judgements, and while I understand that you apparently would have resolved those differently, the anti-nuclear movement operated in good faith to try to avert what was at the time considered a much greater risk than climate change.

We might, or might not, ever discover if they were right.

According to Wikipedia[0], Canada is able to generate 16.6% of their electricity from 19 commercial reactors and hasn't really had any noteworthy accidents (at least nothing that compares to something like say, Deep Horizon. Canada seems like a good case study for safe and effective nuclear power.

> Sure, the anti-nuclear movement did lead us to generally not go down a path that would have helped avert or at least reduce the climate crisis. But the climate crisis was directly caused by the discovery and subsequent use of fossil fuels, not the anti-nuclear movement.

It sounds to me like you're describing a trolly problem scenario where the nuclear industry pulled the lever to only kill one person and not five but then the anti-nuclear activitists pulled the lever back to ensure that five people would die and not one.

I get the impression from your comments on nuclear power that you are one of these anti-nuclear activists but you're experiencing some cognitive dissonance because you're realizing that the course of action that you support may actually have been the wrong one but can't quite admit it.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Canada

> the anti-nuclear movement operated in good faith

They didn't - they never proposed anything to replace nuclear. The renewables success was unexpected and is owed entirely to the tech progress. They were pure luddites simply wishing to revert humankind to a pre-industrial state.

A comment which shows that you apparently don't know much about the luddites, who didn't want to "revert humankind to a pre-industrial state" but were concerned about the implications of technology and in particular the question of control.

The anti-nuclear movement at its peak was already after the soft/alternative technology wave that had started at the end of the 1960s and generally wimpered out by the mid to late 1980s. Maybe you and/or the mainstream were not aware of the suggestions, but solar (hydronic and PV) was already known, small scale wind and hydro were being developed, and groups like the New Alchemists and others were busy working on concepts that would eventually translate into stuff like Passivhaus construction. The renewables success was entirely expected by people who knew about this sort of thing. The movement (such as it was) at that time (and to some extent in its modern forms too, such as Extinction Rebellion, not so well known in the USA) was much more focused on energy use reduction rather than replacement of fossil fuels outright. There were plenty of tinkerers, engineers and starry-eyed folk who shared that vision, and quite a few have been involved in "the renewables success".

Nuclear power plants have been shutting down because the companies that run them can make power more cheaply with wind and solar, not because of "anti-nuclear campaigning."

Wind is the cheapest way to make power, with solar being a close second.

> Nuclear power plants have been shutting down because the companies

Except that is demonstrably false:

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/history-behind-ge...

But what happens if say, the wind doesn’t blow as much as expected [0]? Renewables are great but since you can’t easily bank massive amounts of power for later, you need some sort of reliable, consistent energy source that continues working when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing. Like gas or nuclear. But with nuclear plants falling out of fashion, guess what that leaves you with. Renewables are great but you can’t just ignore their downsides.

0: https://fortune.com/2021/09/16/the-u-k-went-all-in-on-wind-p...

There has definitely been extensive anti nuclear campaigning.

Wind and solar are great but they’re not dependable.

They are also way less reliable which is a huge disadvantage from the point of view of the state. And we're still far from having good energy storage (that is cheap, clean, efficient).

>What's disappointing is the response of european leaders so far. They have prepared a sanctions package against Russia which won't include anything in the energy sector! If not energy then what, Matryoshka dolls? and we are supposed to take them seriously :-(

Oh yes, they will talk tough but will ultimately not do anything at all. Sanctions will target nothing intentionally.

I'm certainly not saying I believe it but the conspiracy theory goes... Putin, Xi Jinping, Boris Johnson, Angela Merkel/Scholz, Jacinda Ardern, Eman Macron, Justin Trudeau, and Scott Morrison are allied against the USA. With some other smaller allies.

Biden's warnings about imminent war in Ukraine, I thought was warmongering. What US president hasn't war mongered since I've been alive?

A week ago I did not consider this to be anything but a conspiracy theory. The current state of affairs in the last week? I am open to listen to more evidence.

Regardless of the conspiracy theory, sure does seem everyone is about to dunk on the USA.

We are also due for a massive bloody conflict: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generatio...

To edit my first post, Democrats have been calling bloody murder against the Russians for how long? Russians are who took Snowden, Russians are the ones who hacked the DNC to reveal Clinton. Democrats assert Trump is controlled by Russia. It seemed all so farfetched.

The moment Putin crossed border into the Ukraine... Putin is the aggressor here. ok well I'm listening to the democrats suddenly.

As a Canadian, boy am I ever uncomfortable finding myself seemingly at odds against the USA.

I sure hope the republicans can open discussion with the democrats over this.