As I commented recently on another thread:
This was done on purpose. There was the hope, that strong economic ties would make war between Germany and Russia impossible. While it now looks really stupid, it worked really well between Germany and France after World War II (first with European Coal and Steel Community and then later with the European Union).
I could think of ways to further minimize gas but there's politics involved too.
It also is a big carrot for Putin (or somebody who takes his place) to rejoin the peaceful world.
Build a golden bridge for your enemies to retreat over -- Sun Tzu
Feels a bit like a chicken or egg question. I'm still undecided though, as Russia was funding the green anti nuclear movements in Germany way back when Fukushima happened.
Fwiw, I don't think that renewables plus batteries are a safe hedge anyways. We're simply offshoring the environmental externalities to places far away in terms of energy storage, and China holds all the cards in this instance.
That said, 8 years is a very short time to switch from existing gas pipelines to LNG terminals.
All that green agenda, Kyoto and Paris stuff, affects Russia very badly by basically cancelling its fossil fuel export earnings. Just look at those who lobby the green agenda in Russia like Chubais.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_war_crimes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_web_brigades
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Research_Agency
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20...
How exactly? You just explained it yourself very well; These trade relations even held trough the worst of the Cold War.
Just like Germany kept its trade relations with the US going while that invaded and bombed half the Middle East.
The only side that switched behavior here, throwing all established rules out of the window, is Germany and the US, by making Ukraine this "ultimate lynchpin" everybody shall pick a side over, and those who don't pick the "right" one shall be considered with the enemy.
These are very much 1:1 the same overtones the US bullied the international community with, thus tolerating American imperialist ambitions, on the other side of the planet, even those have resulted in some of the worst global damage since WWII.
> Once it was clear that's gonna happen, and no that was NOT clear a year ago,
It was clear. He threatened Europe with shutting down gas supplies in the past, more than once. He actually did it with Ukraine in 2014. In response Germany (& Europe) became more dependent on Russia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYaa5Zp7qBI This was 2018. Germany mocked him instead of listening.
Why? Russia, and the USSR through the entirity of the Cold War, delivered reliably all the gas ordered. If you have a stable relationship with suppliers stretching decades and through all kinds of conflicts you have zero incentive to change. The infrastructure is there. And being in business with your "enemy" keeps channels open and results in intet dependencies.
Putin, in a bout of insanity, through all that out of the window. Once it was clear that's gonna happen, and no that was NOT clear a year ago, it was too late to switch (infrastructure).