The US & Canada are energy independent (or at least equalized imports/exports) and food exporters. The EU is a net importer of both so pretty clear why recent events would favor the US/Canada & not the EU.
It's a massive win for the US, the arms exports too.
No, it’s not. Half our politicians are pissed we’re spending $40 billion.
Edit: this is not a "minor economic pain" for Europe and might reach extreme consequences later this year.
On the other hand, the US have played extremely well, gaining on all fronts (increased influence through enlarged Nato and, increased weapons sales, increases oil/gas profits), while China is left in an awkward position. Only downside seems to have been the push for alternatives to dollar/western-centric financial system.
There is a farmer's revolt in Netherlands that's not covered by American media for some reason, but dw and Politico is: https://www.politico.eu/article/police-fire-dutch-farmer-pro...
This is the exact wrong time to do these things. First, you need a strong economy and a backbone that can sustain sustainable practices. Otherwise, the cost of climate change is acceptable over literal starvation, insurrection (Sri Lanka) and other destructive effects in the society.
Has anyone done serious and with good faith, balance and ROI of some of these climate change policies? Note that I am not challenging the validity of CC science, just the economic policies. I hope that its open for debate.
Europe (EU/Nato) is not at risk of attack by Russia. It's not clear why Finland would suddenly be at risk.
What is happening is a continuation of the fall of the USSR when Russia lost very big and was hastily written off. Russia has somewhat recovered and is asserting its claims and interests. While we should hold firm when this clashes with our own, saying that Russia should be beaten into submission is not going to work and is only going to perpetuate conflicts.
As it stands Russia is going to take the Donbas, and it took Crimea back in 2014. So the question is where we go from there. They are not going to hand those territories back to anyone. So we need to negotiate spheres of influence backed by serious force as was the case before the fall of the USSR.
The proposal to have a neutral Ukraine was sensible provided all parties are very seriously held to their word.
Lastly, we should remember that Crimea used to be Russian until very recently and that Ukraine is very special for Russia, so it's far from obvious to me that what they are doing there means they plan to attack/invade other neighbouring countries afterwards...
It's not that we're now suddenly at risk, it's more that we were at risk all the time and now we finally understand it.
Also the highly visible "special operation" allows Russia a whole new level of pressuring us into various things. The message we're seeing is "if we decide to fuck you up, we don't much care if a bunch of our boys get hurt in the process". Which pretty much renders useless any "credible defense deterrent" which isn't an existential threat to them.
> like turning public opinion into agreeing to join Nato in some countries
The change of public opinion as result of the actions we've seen was such an obvious consequence, it makes me wonder if it wasn't one of the effects Putin wanted to get out of this campaign.
Finland, which kept relatively good relations with the USSR throughout the Cold War had actually been at extreme risk all along and must join Nato right now. Right... well at least they have a long border with Russia, not like Sweden... As long as they order F-35s everything's cool, I guess.
It's probably something that's hard to understand from a comfy armchair half a world away, so I guess that's an excuse for the condescending tone.
is rather unfair I think - there are very good reasons why an unpleasant action might be necessary
In general, basic self-interest in geopolitics means to always to something only with a clear upside for yourselves (duh)
With the energy prices as they stand, the UK for example is heading for a social and potentially humanitarian disaster this winter. I don't see how "being firm against Putin" or "Ukraine" justify it.
This a ridiculous absurd assumption. Russia has massive supply issues for just about everything, including defense related industries.
>In general, basic self-interest in geopolitics means to always to something only with a clear upside for yourselves (duh)
[Citation needed]. If the downsides for your enemy are massive it makes sense to take a hit your self. In fact Putin did count on the west to continue it's cynical way of doing business like it did after all the previous Russian wars (Chechnya 1/2, Georgia, Syria, Crimea, Donbass). I'm sure, if the EU could have made the threat of doing what it did later, this would have deterred the invasion. It just didn't have any credibility due to past decisions. But now future threats should be take more seriously. This might stabilize the world as a hole.
>I don't see how "being firm against Putin" or "Ukraine" justify it.
The next winter is going to suck and most people might not have realized that. But speaking of humanitarian disasters, this is our best bet to avoid a way, way bigger humanitarian disaster in the baltics.
What extra justification is needed?
The Commissioner of the President of Ukraine for Children's Rights Daria Gerasimchuk on the Polish TV channel "Belsat" exposed fake Ukrainian propaganda about the alleged violence by the Russian military against Ukrainian children. Proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfUBRGUH-Kc
The Prosecutor General's Office of Ukraine has not a single confirmed fact of violence so far.
LNG is not going to suffice. There isnt even the port capacity to bring it in. Rationing would have to be extreme just to ride out the winter. And then what?
Hitting the economic self destruct button so that Ukraine reserves the right to join NATO doesnt look so appealing any more.
If supplies where dropping 80% Germany would be facing real issues, but that's not the scale we are talking about.
At the moment Europe is going through a self-inflicted crisis that is not justified, be it by security or "the environment".
It may be reasonable to decrease dependency on Russia but the sensible way is to have alternatives in place first.
Edit: Baltic states are in Nato, so my comment fully applies to them.
Saying that "Russia did invade Ukraine so they could attack Nato" is equivalent to saying "the US invaded Iraq so they could attack China". It is plainly a rhetorical fallacy.
EDIT: Finland was also part of Russia.
I didn't, but nevertheless there's a difference between "it's irrational because the cost is higher than the benefit" and "it's irrational because there's no benefit to getting your ass kicked".
The alternative is letting Putin continue to believe that his vision of Russian irredentism — which could very easily go right though my home in Berlin and not stop for a further 100 miles or so — is something the rest of us will sit back and allow.
Putin started a war, even if he hasn't officially called it one yet. Hopefully it will be stopped before he does call it that, but nothing about his decision to invade Ukraine appears either rational or connected with reality.
Maybe if Germany had Russian-majority areas, had started banning the use of Russian, and had violent demonstration clashes resulting in neo-Nazis burning ethnic Russian supporters and seperatists alive - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Odessa_clashes
I don't support Putin or the invasion at all, but it's not like he just invaded out of the blue. Ukraine also failed to allow Donetsk and Luhansk to hold independent referendums for secession - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements#Elections_in_...
The situation is nowhere near as black and white as just "Putin madman". A peaceful compromise around referendums and the right to self-determination would have been the best outcome, but now we should be neutral and put the stability of our own countries first.
Even more unfortunately, at that level propaganda is beyond my ken to reliability disabuse, and I know full well that hawks want me to fear more than I need to.
Yet it is the locals he's claiming to want to liberate who are shooting his troops, the cities he's saying he wants to save that are being flattened by his missiles.
Reminds me of the stories of Afghanistan, where we blew up weddings and then were surprised the locals didn't like us.