The whole ordeal is ridiculous if you are not a dictator with fantasies about greatness.
I'm inclined to think that EU and USA's mistake was to turn blind eye to failing democracies because when a country is not a democracy its leader can do all kind of crazy stuff fuelled with nationalism or another ideology instead of trying to stay in power by providing prosperity. Maybe there must be a rule about offloading dependence when a country turns into less and less democratic nation with leaders who stay in power through means you don't have control in.
Surely sanctions bite and thats why Russia plays the energy card but it definitely would have bitten more or even deter the conflict if Putin was in power through proper governance.
That energy was for Europe for more important than these produce for Russia. Our leaders are to blame for going on with this imbalance of leverage for so long and not taking measures or backups despite the US warning us on several occasions that Europe is vulnerable to Russian exploitation due to this imbalance. Unfortunately for us, out leaders are Muppets asleep at the wheel.
Many times the climate change is half of the story, the other half is that EU couldn't be lavish on energy use even if it wanted.
You're saying it as if that came as a complete surprise to the EU leaders and EU population, that Putin's Russia was not a "real" democracy. When the US and the Eastern Europe was warning for decades that Russia cannot be trusted. Yet Germany turned a blind eye.
No I don't say that at all, read my comment again. I clearly say that they made a mistake with that.
Power of european leaders comes from european citizens, not from US (at least on paper).
Blame the european citizens, that they wanted to have good relations with Russia... no this does not work either.
Many people did not believe Putin would invade, or did not want to preempt him.
Now that we have the proof of treachery, working with/appeasing Russia became dangerous and only now we have a incontrovertible reason to disconnect from it. But before the invasion, it was not so clear that being on good terms with Russia was bad.
I appreciate that major infrastructure projects take a long time to build - but a gas-heavy Russia-dependent energy mix was the deliberate choice very recently.
That's like saying: "you can't blame the drug addict for choosing short term highs for a few years"
Another reason is instability in the Middle East and Iranian sanctions. Both also US choices that have shored up dependence on russian gas.
Right now, the quickest way to more gas would be a rapid deal with Iran that cuts right through US sanctions...
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/05/world/europe/germany-exte...
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/09/25/trump-accuse...
Trade is a great tool to mitigate and avoid conflicts like these, but the power balance was shifted too far into Russia’s favour here.
Energy policy should have included means of establishing sovereignty over energy sources. Shutting down nuclear reactors was probably not the best move. Russian gas was cheaper, until it wasn’t. In hindsight, keeping domestic sources available would have been wise.
Other policies to establish Russian economic dependence upon the West would have helped too. That said, only so much you can do with an autocrat.