Not implying anything at all, but I am worried about potential spetsnaz sabotage operations on the territory of Europe or maybe even the US. Particularly against ammunition factories, storage, or important energy related infrastructure. Context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_mystery_fires

I am sure that people responsible for security of such objects are perfectly aware of the risks, but then the same must be true on the Russian side.

Example from the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Vrb%C4%9Btice_ammunition_...

It is said that the CIA sabotaged Russian pipelines back in Reagan’s day, using methods quite similar to their sabotage of Iran’s centrifuges: diddling the controller software.

As I’m sure we all know, we have made the tragic mistake of connecting a lot of our own infrastructure to the internet: water treatment plants, electrical grid, pipelines, and more. All of which are, naturally, now susceptible to over-the-net attack.

The spetsnaz needn’t do anything: Russian hackers can fuck it all up from the safety of their keyboards.

https://www.wired.com/2004/03/soviets-burned-by-cia-hackers/

https://www.npr.org/2011/05/09/135854490/inside-the-united-s...

> The spetsnaz needn’t do anything: Russian hackers can fuck it all up from the safety of their keyboards.

For those who don’t believe it, look up the story of sandworm

Why sabotage in person when there are better options with plausible deniability?

The Colonial Pipeline supply shock was started by criminal hackers in Russia using ransomware as a service. The company halted service to deal with the computer issue. Then traditional media and social media amplified panic buying.

Russia says they arrested the extortionists. This is the country that brags about "patriotic hackers."

I am not.

Because if Russia does that, the west will have to declare war and then this shit is over.

And if you are going to reply anything about nukes, don't. Neither the us or Russia will fire them.

How do you see a match up like that ending?

USA pushes Russia back to pre Crimea seizure borders?

Why stop there? Why not go to the Volga? Ukraine reached almost all the way to the river before WWII. Maybe go all the way to the Caspian? Provide some security for Georgia and incidentally get A LOT of oil.

At what point do you suppose Russia abandons its "no nukes" policy in this hypothetical conflict?

Well.. it'd be a great time to skimp on maintenance and pocket that difference. Then when the inevitable happens, you can just shout "Russians!"

More directly, I find this conspiratorial view hard to believe given the state of monopolization and infrastructure in the US. There is a much more logical explanation that should be eliminated first before this idea is even remotely entertained.

As someone below mentioned.. if "escalation in Ukraine" is a potential outcome, then you should be very certain of what you claim or allow to be claimed.

> Well.. it'd be a great time to skimp on maintenance and pocket that difference. Then when the inevitable happens, you can just shout "Russians!"

except, that's not how natural gas plants work. Shouting "Russians!" doesn't pay the repair bills, nor does it make up for the lost revenue in the meantime.

If you consider the impact on _one_ plant. If the loss of that plant drives prices up for all other plants, than it could easily be worth it.

But then why stage an incident? If your total profits rise when production at one plant stops, why not just shut down the plant—or reduce output across all plants? As far as I know, nobody is forcing them to over produce.

A staged accident by foreign forces is the OP's wild assertion, I've made no such point.

I'm suggesting that a more banal circumstance, lack of maintenance, and then a true accident, is much more likely. My point is that the current political environment makes deflecting blame in this situation a possibility, not that you would stage an accident to intentionally take advantage of it.

How this is a harder idea to accept then "the russians are secretly blowing this up" is amazing to me, particularly on this forum.

Do you have any *any* evidence at all? If so, please share.

I’ll get a bit conspiratorial for a bit - the Russians just know that no sabotage may be allowed to be linked back to them. Otherwise, public support against them would immediately swell and every bad event would be speculated to have been caused by Russia. As such, it’s possible that this was Russia quietly trying to erode US/EU support for the war.

But does any public support for Russia still exist at this point? Do they have anything to lose? What we witness now is a sad farce where half of what they say are lies - there is no war, they are liberating their own citizens, everybody is welcoming them with flowers, etc. The peak of absurdity is when they "caught" some Ukrainian terrorists in Russia with copies of The Sims game instead of SIM cards.[0] At this point, who cares what they say? And, the other way round, why should they say what the public in the West is saying?

[0] https://nypost.com/2022/04/25/russia-appears-to-confuse-the-...

The note claimed to be found at these "terrorists'" place in the bottom photo of the link you posted goes: dedicated to blah-blah, kill to live and live to kill, signature not legible.

That is, the actual words "signature not legible" instead of what an FSB higher-up probably wanted to be an inscrutable scrawl masquerading as the signature. Some of these FSB guys come straight from a Monty Python sketch.

It's allegedly a nom de plume of some neo-nazi in Russia: https://sensaciy.net/divanniye-eksperti-razoblachili-silovik...

Dude, I Want To Believe™ just as much as you, but citing the NYPost does not constitute “truth” at all. We all know that we are subject to propaganda, all know how Cambridge Analysis manipulated public opinion and political agendas. Robert Murdoch [spit] and his disinformation newspapers. NYPost is barely a step up from the Weekly World News and their Bat Boy.

The story is hilarious. It is plausibly true: the Russian frontline has a lot of folk from remote, impoverished provinces: poorly educated, subsistence-farming, expendable farm boys.

One notes that you phrasing reads opposite to the story. It claims Russian troops posing as Ukr terrorists left behind absurd “evidence” based on misunderstanding their commander’s orders.

> Dude, I Want To Believe™ just as much as you, but citing the NYPost does not constitute “truth” at all.

Well, in this case there is not much to believe. Straight from the horse's mouth:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjF3-4IcvoA

Note this is not the official channel of Ria Novosti, I believe they have been banned, but their ridiculous video is out there in numerous copies. It doesn't matter if it's FSB or some rank-and file soldiers, someone had to approve this ridiculous material to air it worldwide. I know the target is their internal audience, but still.

On the other hand, I have to say I wasn't that surprised. The level of their sophistication at all levels is quite consistent.

On youtube there's an American guy called Hinkle dishing out pro Russian viewpoint, I mean even Trump was a Putin apologist and under the veneer he's probably still got a grudge against Zelensky for his 2nd impeachment so I expect a lot of his believers hold similar twisted views... I mean even if on the surface people agree Putler is evil, many probably view the inflation of oil prices and their diminishing buying power (and their economy...whatever that means) as being caused by the said WAR rather than too much money being printed in 2020-21 to prop up all those poor airlines etc etc

Trump wasn't an apologist. He was a realist. Trump was berating Europe for making themselves dependent on Russian gas. He specifically called out the hypocrisy of having the U.S. maintain a massive military presence in Europe, costing us billions of dollars, to defend them against Russia, while they were paying billions of dollars to Russia for energy.

Meanwhile, during VP Biden family was getting rich off of Ukrainian natural gas with Hunter Biden placed strategically on the board of directors at Burisma. And our DoD and intelligence agencies spent 8 years propping up Ukraine military build up. This is a proxy war and as ill-conceived as any other countless proxy wars U.S. has been dumb enough to get dragged into.

You know why it happened? Because the truth was too scary, too dark to believe. We (Europeans) really believed we did everything not to make WWII break out again. There were many bumps on the way, but we really believed we are evolving, and a war in Europe is unthinkable. So when 2014 came, we preferred to close our eyes. We preferred to believe this is just a minor conflict, and that Ukraine must be partly responsible. And that Putin is a sensible player who will not risk breaking so many connections with the West. We hoped that mutual trade is a kind of guarantee he won't start a war. We were wrong. Everybody was wrong. People who saw it coming were, as you say, realists. But it would be difficult to find such a politician in Europe at that time. Even before 24 February most people were sure it's just a bluff to push for opening Nord Stream 2 faster.

Putin will remember another explosion well, happening in his early Soviet days. Search for:

  Siberia pipeline explosion Thomas C. Reed 1982

yeah, I suspect anything that disrputs the flow of LNG to Europe is a pretty high priority for russian agents in the US

IF Russian spies are blowing up mainland US infrastructure, you can expect a massive escalation in Ukraine.

You probably mistook Biden for Scholz.

Germany and other European countries are the contained nuclear war location in case of an escalation. It is easy to support all sorts of things from another continent.

De Gaulle also did not trust the U.S. precisely for this reason and chose to build nuclear weapons and avoid being under the NATO command structure.

I'm not saying withholding certain types of heavy weapons is good or bad, I was just responding to the person saying that Biden doesn't want these weapons to be delivered, which seemed a bit misguided.

I am worried that guardian was a newspaper.

I am in awe that so far eu politicians are still reluctant to move back to whatever fossil fuels exist in the continent, and instead still push hard for the unachievable fantasy of an emissions-free europe. When is the renewables revolution coming?

Well the energy transition better be over by October or we're in for an unfathomable crisis here in the old world.

It feels like the plan has always been to price the working class off the roads, with no alternative beyond walking or cycling.

But if so, they underestimated how much this could cripple economies.

When you've got the elite/ruling-class flying in to climate conferences on dozens of private jets, it's clear who isn't going to modify their lifestyle for the sake of the environment.

EVs will remain luxuries for the relatively wealthy. You need a spacious home with a garage or at least a driveway if you want to charge at home. No luck if you're in an apartment. And there's still no sign of serious efforts to build charging infrastructure on a 'for the masses' scale, despite bans on new ICE cars planned for less than a decade from now.

(If we get to the point of fully-autonomous self-driving taxis being a thing - they'll be owned in bulk by the super-rich and their corporations, not by regular individuals. It'll probably be illegal for a regular citizen to operate such a service, even when the tech is ubiquitous)

> It feels like the plan has always been to price the working class off the roads, with no alternative beyond walking or cycling.

But why? How does it benefit them? The "oil companies lobbying in the US to make car-free lifestyle difficult" conspiracy makes sense because it benefits them, but how does it benefit the elite in europe to "price the working class off the roads, with no alternative beyond walking or cycling"?

Crowd the working class into cities while you retreat to your private mountain or estate in the country? Keep all the icky poors away from your sight?

that... doesn't make any sense in 21st century at all, no matter how I look into it. I get it, people are pissed off, envious etc. but lets have some rational discussion and not just spit class hate left and right because it feels good (or whatever motivation is there)

If you want to 'save the planet' by massively reducing road travel, you need to relocate the masses into very dense cities, places where public transport can work, where life without cars is practical.

As an added bonus, they're all now crammed into tiny apartments that don't require much carbon emission to heat or cool, and where they don't have space for many physical possessions (less consumption of physical resources, more spend/profits on digital/virtual products)

Meanwhile, the elite can have even more massive rural estates, and drive their luxury EVs on a near-empty road network to and from their private jets.

The problem comes when all the forced-city-dwellers want to escape their urban prison at the weekends... With real travel unaffordable if not outright prohibited, I guess that'll be where the 'metaverse' comes in?...

Ideologies are driving forces.

There doesn’t have to be a reason why someone believes in it.

>And there's still no sign of serious efforts to build charging infrastructure on a 'for the masses' scale

It's not enough but there are 2,000 EV charging stations installed in the EU every week. 10,000 would be better but we're not even one order of magnitude off the target.

I'm also skeptical of the business model for public EV charging.

I forsee a huge bait+switch, with sky-high prices once enough people have invested in an EV and are dependent on the service, and once the charging service providers have built up local monopolies on public charging.

It's hard to have a predatory monopoly on something anyone can produce directly from something as widely available as sunlight. This isn't finite black gold pumped from select regions of the globe, transported and refined with substantial large-scale hazards at every step.

If charging station prices skyrocketed, competition would appear overnight with chargers popping up in every available parking space until the prices stabilized at something reasonable enough for sustaining the industry at a FMV.

Sorry, this just empirically isn't true. Tesla raised supercharging prices 50% overnight without a whimper in my country, while another EV charging chain raised AC rates 100% just because they can. Two years later, neither of them went bankrupt as a result, nor did any competition undercut them

In theory, anyone can open a new charging station. Also, in theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice - they are not. In the real world, economies of scale and supply chain limitations basically guarantee an outcome of oligopolies coalescing into a silent cartel, each of them happily milking their 5-10% margins without any desire to rock the boat.

I don't understand how one can empirically observe this when EVs haven't yet become the dominant vehicle on the road.

Tesla's are rather niche, as a percentage of vehicles on the road it's insignificant. There's not enough demand yet. Tesla drivers are still largely well-heeled early adopters of a luxury brand, of course they're going to be exploited.

It’s not a luxury brand. It is a high tech brand with a few luxury features. I bought a Tesla as a frugal move to save money in the long run, not to spend more, and so far it’s working.

The up front investment is higher but the long term costs are lower. If you think in purely purchase money terms you can trick yourself to think a Yugo or Skoda or Yaris or Leaf etc. is cheaper, but I factor in safety and fun, so my calculation differs.

They can raise prices all they want. Right now, they are just affecting the “rich people who have EVs” and not us “normal people”. I never knew the prices increased and not did I care. Still don’t, actually. But if I was affected, I would probably do something about it because I do care about keeping my costs low.

Enforcement of the monopolies may well be regulatory or contractual.

If a big retail chain does a deal with one company to provide a number of chargers in each of its car parks, the contract will likely prohibit the use of other providers to install more charging points.

Who ever gets in first can most likely ensure they control the vast majority of the car parks in the local area - all the major retailers and apartment complexes. They'll probably offer to install chargers for free so long as they get to bill for the power.

Once demand is high enough, they don't need a perfect monopoly, if the dominant company has a plentiful supply of chargers and the cheaper competitor only has a few and there's constant queues for them.

> It's hard to have a predatory monopoly on something anyone can produce directly from something as widely available as sunlight.

And who will give you a permission to build your own infrastructure to generate electricity on top of your apartment building?

Would you be in favor of charging infrastructure being run as a public utility?

That's probably a better option.

It won't be long before there's heavy taxes on EV charging, to make up for the lost fuel tax revenue. Were're not going to escape governments taking their cut, but if we can prevent a big slice of the revenue from going directly into private pockets, that'd be a good thing.

Governments pay for roads with fuel taxes, vehicle registration fees, and general tax revenue since the first two are not enough. Delaware gets 80% cost recovery through user fees, while Alaska brings up the rear at 20%. How we pay for roads is a political choice.

Some states are adding punitive EV and hybrid registration fees that are equivalent to a fuel tax paid for a 13 MPG truck. They provide the justification that fuel tax needs to be fully replaced, EVs are heavier vehicles causing more road wear, and since EV owners are wealthier on average it's a progressive tax.

> And there's still no sign of serious efforts to build charging infrastructure on a 'for the masses' scale, despite bans on new ICE cars planned for less than a decade from now.

Amsterdam has decent public charging infra. The best (and having biggest quantity) in Europe even. Heck even the Netherlands in its whole on its own accounts for most of the public charging points in Europe. Finding a public charing point is entirely possible in Amsterdam even though still a nuisance sometimes.

But go outside Amsterdam and the situation deteriorates exponentially. Outside Amsterdam I don't count on being able to charge most of the time. I went to a vacation park last month and they had one charging point for the entire park, with no alternative in a radius of 20 km. Outside the Netherlands I don't count on being able to charge at all.

This is a huge failure in foresight.

> It feels like the plan has always been to price the working class off the roads, with no alternative beyond walking or cycling.

"Just use slow, crowded, unsafe and inefficient public transit" "Don't worry about me, I have to be chauffeured around, security reasons you know!"

"Just give away your guns. You don't need them for protection, you and your kids will be safe with the police" "Me? Oh it's different. See I need theses armed bodyguards with me. For security reasons you know!"

Europe is pretty diverse.

Many European countries have efficient public transit. Some allow firearms. One territory even has mandatory open carry.

Where might you be from?

No, many European cities have efficient public transit. Sometimes they have great inter-city rail services too.

Public transport is never likely to be effective in more rural areas, though.

I think GP is pointing out hypocrisy.

> When you've got the elite/ruling-class flying in to climate conferences on dozens of private jets, it's clear who isn't going to modify their lifestyle for the sake of the environment.

Private Jets Set to Escape Higher EU Energy Taxes - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-09/private-j...

We had two Teslas for a year in an apartment with no charging on site. It worked just fine. Your assumption that it won’t work is mistaken.

On the other hand, I would agree it would be better and easier with on-site charging. But it wasn’t bad at all.

If this comment was any more American it'd be eating apple pie while cleaning out the barrel of an AR-15.

"Pricing the working class off the roads and onto the sidewalk" is the sort of thing that Europeans don't really worry about, because their cities are actually built for pedestrian traffic first and cars second. American cities are built for cars first, and pedestrian traffic if you feel like death from being thrown fifty feet in the air is a good way to go. Furthermore, Europeans already pay way more for gas than we do, and this is politically allowable because most people do not drive to work in Europe. EVs are popular in America because it's the easy quick bandaid fix to the fact that making the entire population drive a powered personal vehicle to work is an environmental nightmare. Europe has trains and buses that work.

Totally agree about self-driving taxis; but again, that's an American solution to an American problem for the same reasons I mentioned above.

The real problem for Europe is going to be the coming winter. Forget pricing the poors off the roads, how about pricing the poors out of a warm home? Most of Europe's home heating gas came from Russia pre-war. And while Nordstream was very much a geopolitical bad idea, there weren't very many better options to get cheap gas into the region. In fact, this is exactly what Putin is banking on, and much of Russia's prior acts of aggression can be better understood as "what can we do to ensure we have a monopoly on European gas imports and pipelines?".

It's also a mistake to look at elites and assume they hate their population purely because they are failing them. The underlying problem is not that they are feckless dictators, it's that they have no good options. If, a decade and change ago, Germany had said no to Russian gas in response to, say, the invasion of Georgia; whoever made that decision would have been punished by being voted out for having taken away the cheap gas from people. You'd have yellow-vest protests all over the Union, and then the whole EU would sheepishly walk back to Russia and beg for the gas pipeline to be turned back on. This is the same reason why the EU has found it difficult to actually fully transition to renewables or low-carbon energy[0], and America has found it outright impossible.

In fact, I'm not entirely convinced that we won't see yellow-vests all over France[1] this winter. Petrostates have the uncanny ability to survive and evade sanctions, because their people do not have the luxury of deposing elites that fail them, and resource wealth is highly fungible. If you want to see elites that truly hate their poors, look at any country whose wealth comes out of the ground instead of from the people. In contrast, elites in democratic countries are, well, democratically accountable for any policy they implement that harms the people - even if that policy is otherwise a good idea.

[0] i.e. renewables plus nuclear; though the history of nuclear power in Europe has it's own problems

[1] Insert the appropriate cultural equivalent for your EU member state here

“Whatever fossil fuels exist in the continent”

That’d be coal. Which Europe produces some of, but was importing from Russia until a few months ago. In general, it is not like Europe has a big pile of practically exploitable-in-reasonable-time fossil fuels that it isn’t using.

Yeah, even if we had enough coal, we would need something like coal liquefaction in massive scale to at least somewhat replace russian gas and oil - can't use a (ICE) car or a gas burner with coal briquettes or coal powered electricity.

There's also Dutch natural gas, but they've been limiting production due to seismic stability concerns.

To be fair, if we leaned in on nuclear we'd be oil free. I'd much rather deal with highly concentrated nuclear waste than CO2 & Methane emissions

Maybe if we had leaned in on nuclear 40-50 years ago. (Even then, Uranium does not grow on trees). But right now, that's not a viable option for the next thirty years. Industrial and Regulatory challenges are impossible to overcome in the timeframe that's needed.

The USGS has identified US thorium reserves that could meet the WORLD's energy for the next 138 years. I hope in 200 years when or if we run out of nuclear energy that we've managed to find alternative energy sources or leverage space mining.

https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1336/pdf/C1336.pdf

Another reference for thorium salt reactors: https://www.thmsr.com/en/the-thorium-molten-salt-reactor/

> To be fair, if we leaned in on nuclear we'd be oil free

no one knows that -- you think that Exxon and crew are ready to sit down ? They fired their Dutch CEO for trying to make the transition almost twenty years ago IIR

As others in this thread say -- this change reveals the struggles between giants, not the quarrels of simple people in media that happens daily

Renewables are the only way that Europe will be somewhat independent in terms of energy in the forseeable future (though hardly emissions free). The technology is already there, we've just been sitting on our asses for two decades instead of pursuing it aggressively.

The number of installed wind turbines in Germany has stagnated, for example. Output has increased, but that's because of repowering old installations. NIMBY rules and incredibly complex approval procedures prevent growth.

You'd think this would be all the motivation required to rapidly expand renewables. Evidently not, we'll just keep having the same conversation. Whatever.

Yes this is ridiculous. The Netherlands has been pretty good at expanding residential solar, but apparently the electric grid operators have been sitting on their asses for years, and so now we have too much solar because the grid can't handle the solar power during peak sunny days in summer.

It's like they plan nothing and just let things grow organically, which causes lots of issues and is inefficient.

The technology is not there for the grid to handle a whole bunch of excess solar energy during peak sunny days. We just don't have options for energy storage on the scale required. The usual approach of groups pushing for this is to handwave the problem away and call for more subsidies on domestic solar, which is of course popular with the public because it means money for them and punts the incredibly expensive and difficult part until later for someone else to deal with.

This isn't even about storage. This is just about having thick enough electric cables so that the grid doesn't overload. Right now the grid fails even if there are consumers for all that power. We're failing to transport the power.

Residential solar is very different to regular solar though. Grids weren't designed to aggregate lots of tiny feeds from people's houses, and it makes sense not to over-build that ahead of demand because in many cases the maths don't really work out except via subsidies, which can be here today, gone tomorrow.

The technology is there, it's called demand response. Air conditioning and refrigeration are major workloads at the peak of summer, and can easily absorb any "excess" supply at a moment's notice. The heat capacity of whatever is being actively cooled then acts as your "battery".

Among many other things. We should have started figuring out this stuff -- and implementing it -- twenty years ago. Such a missed opportunity.

All the easy sites for wind turbines have already been developed. Incremental wind turbine in new sites will be exponentially harder to get approved/accepted. If you don't see the development of wind turbins in the last two decades as a massive undertaking then doubling the install base will definitely be let alone tripling or more. This will be very inflationary especially because there is already a huge labor shortage for people servicing wind turbines.

I don't know about easy, but there are plenty of good sites left if you don't have a blanket ban of around a mile around every hamlet. And it'd help if the approval procedures for new construction wouldn't drag on for years and years.

These things aren't part of the physical environment, they're political realities. Are they fixable? I doubt it, like I said above, if people haven't got it by now, they never will. In the long run, Germany doesn't matter anyway, that's the good news.

> In the long run, Germany doesn't matter anyway, that's the good news.

I think this is VERY wrong if you believe in the severeness of (man made) climate change. It does indeed not matter as a share of emissions but if developed countries can not pull it off in a profitable way (or at least without loosing too much prosperity) the no other countries will follow (unless the WEF archieves to assemble their authoritarian super power to force everyone to comply)

This is rare enough that I hope quite a bit of effort is put into figuring out exactly how it happened. There are many possibilities, but some of them are more/less avoidable and important for very different reasons.

The most likely explanation is an industrial facility running close to 100% utilization, likely with reduced or poorly trained staff due to COVID and a tight labor market.

This is the folly of turning off nukes and relying on intermittent power. It greatly increases the need for gas powered generators.

Except in summer, when it's hot and dry enough again for France's nuclear power plants to turn intermittent, too.

Was the LNG control system air-gapped, isolated and triple redundant?

Or was it some fly-by-night "hot-backup" contraption tied to the internet?

.

There definitely seems to be a dearth of competent IT people in industry in Europe in general. I wonder if the same is true in the USA.

It is a mistake for us to replace Russian gas with American gas.

I agree. Even if Russia is our worst enemy, depleting their resources first is quite a logical step. Would you want Russia to be the last country that still has oil reserves for its military?

Replacing Russia with Qatar or Saudi Arabia (Jemen war?) is hypocritical.

Replacing Russia with the U.S. gives the U.S. too much power over the EU. It can be used as a bargaining chip in unrelated negotiations like privacy rights etc.

> Even if Russia is our worst enemy, depleting their resources first is quite a logical step. Would you want Russia to be the last country that still has oil reserves for its military?

The fallacy in this reasoning is that with the money from the sales of gas Russia can - and is continuing to - arm themselves and conquer more land and kill more people. The Qatar is not engaged in killing thousands of people right now - if they were, we would not be buying oil from them, either, for the same reasons we are reducing our dependence on Russian gas.

We could not trade with anybody if we stopped trading for ethical reasons. By the same logic we should also stop trading with USA because of the Iraq War (and many others).

You did not address the reasoning, which is about the fact that the last country on earth with oil reserves will have a strategic advantage.

Russia can always trade with China to have enough money for weapons. Anyway, even with all the Europe trade in the past decades they can barely advance 50 km in Ukraine.

> You did not address the reasoning, which is about the fact that the last country on earth with oil reserves will have a strategic advantage.

I agree this is a problem, and hopefully its scale will be much lower in a few decades as we are moving away from fossil fuels. But even if we were consuming them rapidly as we are doing now, we are talking ca. 50 years for oil and natural gas. Whereas the danger from Russia is right now.

> Replacing Russia with the U.S. gives the U.S. too much power over the EU. It can be used as a bargaining chip in unrelated negotiations like privacy rights etc.

I agree with this.

>>U.S. too much power over the EU

Bullshirt

Russia has already explicitly used energy blackmail on EU nations, and is specifically pushing Nordstream, etc. pipelines to create such dependency. Most recently Russia broke it's contracts and demanded payment in Rubles in order to support it's currency after launching a genocidal attack on it's neighbor.

US policy has been explicitly AGAINST even allowing exports for decades, and only relaxed recently in order to support our EU friends.

Russia is an entirely unreliable supplier, the US is reliable.

Take your new troll account and go back to Leningrad, Boris.

I'm against this war, but I think the history is a little different. Russia has always been a reliable supplier except for the recent demand to pay in Rubles.

Nordstream was built because Ukraine was an unreliable transit nation:

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

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jan/03/russia-ukraine...

Maybe it’s hard to be reliable when Russia keeps attacking you.

If "Ukraine was an unreliable transit nation" it was only because Russia kept shutting off their supply to attempt to undermine their government and extract consessions.

In Putin's latest speech, he laid bare the goals - to re-enact Peter The Great and restore Russian lands', which basically include anything Russia wants, not merely Ukraine, but Poland, Lithuania, Sweden (which PTG took with the same excuse of it 'being Russian'.

Putin is literally working to rebuild a 19th century empire with 19th century war rules, genocide included.

If you are supporting this in any way, again, you are at best a Useful Idiot (in the Vladimir Lenin sense) or at worst a paid bot/troll.

Stop it

I hate it when people can't have a reasonable discussion and resort to calling others as "bots". Not everyone who disagrees with you is Russian or a bot.

Not everyone is, but when you are a new account obviously doing nothing but making simplistic and inaccurate arguments carrying Putin's water, you are at best a Useful Idiot (in the Vladimir Lenin sense) or a troll/bot.

Inapplicable here

You literally are carrying Putin's water in this discussion.

People doing that are either fooled, or doing it deliberately. I did leave out the option that you could actually support anti-democratic authoritarian governments, because there is no enlightened thought path to that conclusion (& no Hobbes' writings do not get there), leaving us with only the two options, fooled, or trolling for a higher power structure. I'm not really interested in which.

> It can be used as a bargaining chip in unrelated negotiations like privacy rights etc.

There are many things one could have said here (e.g. PDOs -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_designation_of_origi... , regulations on hazardous materials, etc. ) , but privacy rights is not exactly one of them. The EU can and has been squashing those on its own just fine.

Could? They're working on re- recognizing Privacy Shield as GDPR compliant. The US most definitely has a huge bargaining chip.

I donated to NOYB when I heard this.

Funding the invasion of a European country and the murder of countless Europeans doesn’t seem like a good option.

What’s bad about gas from the US?

Have you forgot how the U.S. has used its armed forces in the last 100 years?

Buying U.S. gas possibly means funding the invasion of whatever country is next on the agenda, and the murder of countless civilians. How is that a good option?

Should Germany stop exporting cars because of WWI + II then?

The U.S. has a long history from past to present of repeatedly invading countries and using military means to achieve geopolitical goals and making the world more conducive to its ambitions, with no regard for human life.

Don't compare Germany to a country like the U.S. in this way because of what the Nazi Party did 80 years ago.

If you go back 100 years that includes World War II…

You're grasping.