A hot war between EU/NATO and Russia is not something anyone should advocate for, nor is letting Russia just take countries it wants on the edges of Europe. The current situation is a direct result of ignoring a long pattern of Russian aggression and expansionism in Georgia, Moldova, and Crimea.
They've made me, as a citizen in an EU country, pay out of my nose for their moral betterness though, when we are not even a party to the war.
The time to start getting off Russian gas was 2014. The EU, and Germany in particular, let a gun be pointed at their head for far too long.
The EU should provide payment assistance to low-income folks for their energy bills, or directly subsidize it.
It is possible to dislike all empires you know.
This is a very silly assertion.
I don't mean to be alarmist but we've seen similar scenarios play out in Europe before. This isn't merely about what's morally correct, it's also about self-interest.
I hope it doesn't come to that, but it could some day, I don't know, obviously if Russia attacks... well, in the meantime, I don't think we should be giving Russia more money it can use to further develop its military.
I am stating that going to war with Russia is the only way to walk the walk and be provably morally good over the issue. The sanctions are just a particularly expensive form of virtue signaling that does not alter the outcome of the war, but makes EU leaders Feel Good.
> Don't think we should be giving Russia money it can use to pay its soldiers and build more weapons.
And I disagree, my extended family is already in troubles and the proper price increase doesn't even come until winter.
It's not a "don't think" question either. Would I like to be energy independent? Of course. Can I currently? No, not without risking energy security for winter. So I would pay (but EU has decided it is a Moral Bad, and tells me to warm myself with Moral Good).
Suffering ~10%+ inflation and having no guaranteed energy (all depends on Germany) for moral good boy points only helps nobody, and neither of the conditions alter the material facts on the frontline, nor does it make EU resilient either (economical turmoil has generally been a politically radicalizing agent in democracies).
It is just stupid, hysterical politics.
They are hopelessly outclassed in all categories but nukes. And UK/France has a couple of them, so Russia can't nuke willy nilly.
A loss in Ukraine means every non-NATO state in the region either gets nuclear armed up, or gets annexed.
The expectation that the result of "letting it happen" would also be cheap gas is laughable: if someone's willing to trade away their morals and a country for something you sell them, then you already know it's underpriced.
EU and USA are letting it happen though: there is no military deployment to Ukraine to protect it, and (my guess is) there will not be.
Is that what you think Russian expansion in those regions is about? It's not. Just like the current military expansion, those conflicts have been about acquiring and controlling natural gas and oil reserves in those regions.
This entire conflict has been about energy and it's been going on for the past decade or so because of relatively recent discoveries of fossil fuel reserves in these areas coupled with control over pipelines transporting these resources.
At the end of the day these struggles are about resources and fundamentally existential in nature. If Russia fails to acquire more reserves it will be on a sure path to absolute decline. This is why the nuclear threat should be taken seriously, if Russia where to lose this conflict entirely, they would be on the path to complete collapse. If pushed too far it makes absolute sense for Russia to take extreme options since they would be backed into a pretty severe corner.