Is it Russia stopping exports to the EU or the EU deciding to stop buying gas from Russia? To me it seems like they are simply taking decisions against their citizens best interests.
The german government is not deciding against the people in this case. (i believe... a german). German people are highly against nuclear and think that renewables could immediately solve our problems. This is just a lack of information and a ton of ignorance on the peoples side.
Apart from that our politicians are really "soft" in my eyes and i don't believe they will help the situation much in relation to Russia.
edit: Don't know about the rest of EU. That's why i state "my" countries perspective more.
The funny thing is, the same people arguing against nuclear power (with mostly ridiculously unscientific arguments against all statistics) will be the ones complaining about the situation and that politics should save us all.
I am very interested in the pro/contra nuclear discussion and the more i know about it, the more our current situation saddens me.
Why should it be not true? Planned maintenance is fully normal and certainly occurs on that infrastructure. The differences to normality are:
-- that sanctions have made the maintenance operations problematic: e.g. one turbine was held in Canada, and its release was agreed days ago only upon request from Germany. Why and how this process was impacted by the sanctions I do not know: it is what is reported by journalists;
-- that during normal operations, during maintenance on the main pipeline the gas is redirected to the secondary pipeline in Ukraine, hiding the technical works through such backup system. The secondary pipeline is inactive because of the war.
Anyone taking anything coming out of Russia at face value hasn't been paying attention or is painfully naïve.
Diffidence is a generic scalar, function result of the speaker - ok -, but diffidence over something specific calls for extra consideration, not just immediate dismissal.
Edit:
That the stream will return flowing - this was never something that we assumed. But for what the interruption of services is concerned, as pure normalcy, see the graphics at The Economist from S&P - the dents are quite regular...:
https://cdn.espresso.economist.com/files/public/images/20220...
Just in order to calibrate diffidence to the right places.
What decision do you have in mind?
Throwing nuclear out the window and becoming so dependent on Russian gas? Not predicting Russian Imperial dreams of ruling the Europe?
OR
Trying to curb Russia during the war the best they can.
Because we need not to forget that Europe is at war. It is Ukrainians who are doing all the fighting ATM but all the western world is very much involved.
Europe is not at war. Or at least it wasn't until some politicians decided it was their business to intervene in somebody else's war. This is certainly against their own citizen.
I am an EU citizen myself and I did not consent to join this war.
> Not predicting Russian Imperial dreams of ruling the Europe?
Sorry, but that was never the case and will never be the case.
> Throwing nuclear out the window and becoming so dependent on Russian gas?
Bingo! However, that was not Russia's fault. It was definitely self-sabotage.
That is against /some/ of their own citizens - which since the rushed invention of politics (management of conflicting interests and ideals) is what is normal, so there is no news there.
Do you consider Ukraine not Europe? What is it then?
> I am an EU citizen myself and I did not consent to join this war.
You need to be naïve to think that anybody "consents" to a war.
> > Not predicting Russian Imperial dreams of ruling the Europe?
> Sorry, but that was never the case and will never be the case.
Please refer to any rhetoric from Russian ruling class e.g. https://tass.com/politics/1432657 "the creation of an open Eurasia from Lisbon to Vladivostok".
My guess would be that you are "sitting far from the war" and thinking that it is not yours. However countries in the beginning of WWII had exactly the same sentiments - "we are far and it is not ours". Until it knocks on your door. This is why EU reacts, EU wants to solve this while it is not so close.
> Do you consider Ukraine not Europe? What is it then?
What kind of argument is this? Just because this entity is geographically part of the same region as my country doesn't mean I need to choose anything less than the best deal I can get on any products from wherever I choose.
If his wife wants to leave, it is completely understandable and acceptable that he wants to kill her.
HN is not a place for arguments like this but I am sorry to say to you that you are naïve, self-serving and seem to lack any values.
And yes, I may be naive thinking that politicians should serve their citizen first rather than citizen of another country. It's easy to talk about values, but harder to put the said values in practice when you are cold and hungry. Most people in Eastern Europe have a very hard life already.
It is isolated conflict that should be solved between countries involved.
If Russia is selling gas (anything) cheaper you should just buy it as it serves citizens of your country.
Throwing nuclear is a mistake but it has nothing to do with Russia.
My arguments are:
Russia has "Imperial ambitions" towards Ukraine, Georgia, Baltics and etc. Putin is stating that collapse of Soviet Union was the biggest mistake ever, all the internal communications in Russia are very aggressive, Putin was threatening nuclear weapons in the beginning of the war and etc. Medvedev is on another level threatening everybody around - see my previous comment for example.
This is where geography becomes important. While conflict is in Ukraine now, a lot of people believe that it might spread.
Why? Because Russia is influencing EU politics, using soft-power, social media to influence opinions and etc. Russia is very much involved for a long time already. It is not like German addiction to Russian gas was not influenced by Russia. Russia has further ambitions, always had. Russia is not just calmly existing inside of its territory. It always had global agendas. Like any other country.
Values. In the end Europeans have some values and most importantly EU is built on some fundamental values. Democracy, human rights and etc. Authoritarian country starting land wars in the Europe and threatening others does not sit right with it.
I can't agree that "most people in Eastern Europe have a very hard life already". Define "most" and "very hard life". It just means nothing. The thinking is that being at war is on another level "very hard".
So keeping in mind these it looks natural for EU to get involved. Because there is a belief in values and a belief that if Russia is not stopped, conflict can roll over to further countries. A lot of rhetoric from Russia actually state it.
> Values. In the end Europeans have some values and most importantly EU is built on some fundamental values. Democracy, human rights and etc
So we should be voting whether we want to support Ukraine, a non-EU entity, in any way - whether through imposing sanctions to Russia (which will later bite us back) or through sending them weapons (which will only escalate the war). It seems like you are arguing for straight out authoritarianism: joining a war against popular support.
> I can't agree that "most people in Eastern Europe have a very hard life already". Define "most" and "very hard life". It just means nothing. The thinking is that being at war is on another level "very hard".
If you spent any time with regular people in the Eastern Europe you would understand. But again, you are arguing that we are or should be in a war and hence this is acceptable. It is not. It is pure gaslighting. At this point it seems like you are pro-war and would say anything to convince people that they should be part of a war. I wonder why.
Again refer to Medvedev's comment about "the creation of an open Eurasia from Lisbon to Vladivostok".
Then again what would be Russia's interest in USSR? Do you believe that Russia has any rights to Poland, Ukraine, Estonia?
If you join a war against somebody that never attacked you in the first place, you are an aggressor, regardless of what they did to others.
I thought it started to show when you mentioned that Russia being interested in borders of USSR. But then you backtracked from it.
> If you join a war against somebody that never attacked you in the first place, you are an aggressor, regardless of what they did to others.
That would be crazy, wouldn't it? Any bigger country could just attack any neighbor and all other would just continue as if nothing happened? In your mind Russia can just attack e.g. Estonia and everybody should just ignore it? Basically you are not agreeing to it but it is a thing between Estonia and Russia only.
You are either Russian troll or just consumed too much Russian propaganda. Just listen to yourself.
Everybody should just continue trading with Russia because it is the best for their citizens.
Russia invading other countries is just between Russia and victim country.
If any other country is against aggressor they are "involving citizens into war". They should vote if they want to involve into war.
Geography is not important for you. You are ignoring anything I say about Russian rhetoric.
Classic whataboutism "look at Iraq". As if somehow Iraq justifies Russian aggression.
I don't think you are "let's just trade with Russia because it is the best for us". You are just pro-Russia and that's it.
Dude, Estonia is NATO, so that is a very different story. NATO would definitely have to intervene. Not that I agree with that either, but I guess it is part of some contract.
You are the one who came up with the "borders of USSR" theory, and I agreed in that I couldn't care less if they took over Ukraine or some of the -stans. As long as they leave my country alone, which was not part of the USSR, it is none of my business what wet dreams Putin has. That is where I draw my line in the sand. So no, I didn't "backtrack".
The argument with Iraq is a valid one because what you are saying is essentially that the same rules would not apply to one aggressor (the US) and another one (Russia). So it is you, my friend, who has been consuming too much propaganda, I am afraid.
> I couldn't care less if they took over Ukraine or some of the -stans.
> As long as they leave my country alone
Maybe this says everything. Must be really naïve or shortsighted if thinking like this. You would just trade with some serial killer as long as the price is right and he doesn't kill you. At least as long as you pay for the goods.
No. Very normal ethos is that if you see something occurring that looks "wrong", first you assess to be sure, then upon confirmation you intervene.
Normally the difficulty is in assessment. Sometimes it is not even difficult.
The EU did not reduce their attempts of buying gas from Russia.
In favour of what? Dependency on the US gas at x2 the price? How's EU industry supposed to remain competitive at this energy prices?
That can only be accomplished by the EU pumping their own gas and oil, building their own nuclear power plants, etc.
There is no lack of natural resources in Europe. Just a lack of planning, and an excess of unrealistic green ideology.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-07/the-us-is...
It’s ironic to think that Europeans suspected ulterior motives from the US and so you literally cozied up to the fucking Russians. Europeans really know how to pick winners.