Hacker News Reader

This is a straw man argument.

Everyone, “western media” included is fully aware that not buying the gas is about cutting off the money for financing the war. No one is “spinning” a story around Russia arbitrarily cutting off supplies - we know it’s neither technical issues nor rouble payments that are the root cause here. It’s a literal unprovoked and premeditated war that someone is using to retain their firm grip on power.

We’re not buying the gas because we don’t want it. We might be “shooting ourselves in the foot” economically/industrially, but that is the price that must be paid if Europe is to be worth living in.

> but that is the price that must be paid if Europe is to be worth living in.

Could you clarify, is it going to be worth living in because, by buying Qatar's LNG, it will help Qatar to fund Jabhat al-Nusra in waging a war in Syria? [1] [2]

[1] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/qatar-funnelled-millions-...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front#Qatari_involvem...

You are being downvoted but I agree - us not wanting to finance that war does not mean all the other economic relationships are suddenly made “clean”.

This however is also a case of a “whatabout” argument. Anything from recycling to humanitarian aid can be effectively shot down in a debate with it.

Fact is - Ukraine is closer, and it has a more significant impact on the EU. There are Ukrainians in my neighborhood now. And their presence is confronting everyone in our society with the questions of whether we are willing to stand by our ideals. Whether we are willing to open up our homes, make our neighborhoods available, provide jobs etc. So far the answer has been yes, and I have found my country worth living in.

The whatabout argument is needed to check whether the principles stated by politicians are upheld and enforced universally across the board, as we all are supposed to support and pay for the moral principles that guide the current counter-measures. This would indeed make european countries visibly worth living in. But if the principles are being replaced by non-consistent utilitarian opportunities, because they make for a convenient political climate of non-responsibility for the people in charge, I don't see the extra price imposed on european citizens to be morally worth paying.

The truth is, there doesn't seem to be an option that would allow european leaders to morally avoid all economic dealings with tyrants. Hence diplomacy exists since the dawn of ages, and politicans had better learn and practice it to keep the tyrants occupied with their domestic issues, as it helps to propagate peace better than sanctions, and because the only other alternative to it is a growing military confrontation.

Unless the tyrants have a firm grip on their domestic issues and are executing a highly kinetic attack abroad. Then the sanctions are merely sand being thrown in the face, with hope of maybe blunting the short-term impact.

There was no diplomatic solution here. For 20+ years the West has been negotiating. Even delivering what was necessary for an economic boom to the other side in the 00’s-10’s. But there was never any good faith from the other side I don’t think: only a cynical belief that the West is actually just run by tyrants who run it all from the shadows. That the West is in a position to sell off independent countries, and that it is in control of it’s own “sphere of influence”.

This is where whatabout arguments fail imo. They don’t work when you realize that the “West” is a distributed network and no one is in “charge”. Politicians only uphold principles as far as they need to while juggling other parts of their individual brands.

I think it would be a deeper philosophical topic whether keeping “peace” is the only goal worth pursuing.

| We’re not buying the gas because we don’t want it. |

Yep that’s exactly what’s happening.

Does Russia have to invade Ukraine? Does it have to keep killing civilians?

They could put an end to this today, but they won't, because the loss of face is worse than the loss of life.

Reality is millions of people could freeze to death that probably couldn't find Ukraine on a map 10 months ago. Since the only view you get from is the one behind the electronic curtain it isn't surprising you are so misled. The green party in Germany laughed at the suggestion by Trump that Europe is too dependent on Russian gas.

Yes, but that doesn't change who is cutting off whom.

Russia invaded Ukraine and diverse countries who did not understand the significance of their choice to make themselves dependent on Russian gas had to take what peaceful measures they could to deny resources to Russia, but obviously the Rusdians aren't going to sell something in return for something they can't access-- it's equivalent to nonpayment. There's no readon not to say that openly.

The only bad thing about this affair is that some countries are trying to substitute their Russian gas for Azerbaijani gas, which is just as bad war-of-aggression wise , even though that is of course further away from Europe.

  >The only bad thing about this affair is that some countries are trying to substitute their Russian gas for Azerbaijani gas, which is just as bad war-of-aggression wise , even though that is of course further away from Europe.

Yes. It's funny how moral outrage fades with distance, isn't it? And also with "Are they friends of ours or not?"

I've not noticed any calls to boycott Saudi Arabian oil in response to that country's Bombing and killing of civilians in Yemen.

It's incredible how otherwise intelligent people, switch off their critical faculties and revert to "baddies vs goodies" levels of analysis, when it comes to international politics.

It's not really a matter of morality though.

We care about Ukraine because we don't want Russian domination in eastern Europe-- it's simply a matter of security.

Obviously security must go first, but if we can afford it morality is often good long-term.

What about NATO domination in Europe?

Why can so many of you not see [beyond simplistic 'goodies' and 'baddies' labels] how much Russia feels threatened by that? Imagine if the cold war had been 'won' by the other side; Canada and Mexico had joined the Warsaw Pact and the USSR had troops and ICBMs stationed there. And now Alaska, which had declared independence from the rest of the USA was talking about doing likewise [0] How do you think the US would react?

Clue: look up 'Cuban Missile Crisis' if you need a hint.

One of the fundamental pre-requisites for solving crises diplomatically before the shooting starts is seeing things from the other guy's point of view. Simply dismissing 'them' as the 'baddies' and discounting their view of the world only leads to more conflict --as has happened in Ukraine.

[0] Baggsy a share of the royalties, if someone decides to write this up as an Alternative History blockbuster!

But there is no NATO domination of Europe.

A bunch of European countries joined. They weren't forced to.

Of course the Russians feel threatened, but that doesn't justify anything. It's possible I too would have come to the conclusion and invaded Ukraine, if I were in their place, but it's still against the UN charter and it's still a war of aggression.

Countries don't have a right not to have huge alliances on their doorstep. That doesn't mean that they can allow them, so perhaps the war was inevitable, but the Russians don't have the power to take what they want anyway without losing more than they can afford to, so a necessity argument becomes dubious, and even a correct necessity argument wouldn't be a justification, because it would still be a war of aggression and against the UN charter.

You could also flip it around, and see it from a Ukrainian point of view, then there's a country that demands that they not join NATO, but imagine receiving such a demand? It goes beyond what is acceptable in the international order as we see it, a demand that another state subordinates itself.

I remember something someone in Sweden said, that if Russia were allowed to have their buffer state, Russia would force a large population than that which Russia itself has, to follow Russian policy in who they get to ally with. It's a comical thing. It's not quite true though, depending how you count, but even Ukraine alone is 40 million people, that alone is demanding to control another country with a population of 20% of Russia itself, so while it might not be right mathematically the point is still pretty sharp, I think. Imagine if Sweden demanded that Norway do as it wants, because it has smaller population.

The reality is that Estonia demanding a buffer between itself and Russia is no less legitimate than any demand of Russia to have a buffer between itself and NATO, which is to say, not legitimate at all. Peoples get to rule themselves and their historical lands, not anything else.

  >Does Russia have to invade Ukraine? Does it have to keep killing civilians?

You're changing the argument. I'm not arguing whether Russia was morally right or wrong to invade Ukraine. I'm arguing that Europe [in particular] was incredibly short-sighted to choose to respond by effectively forcing Russia to cut off our gas supplies in the run up to winter.

The last sentence is applicable to both sides by the way.

Especially because of https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/08/ukraine-ukrai...

But both sides are hostages of their own politics and narratives of who's good and who's bad.

Russia is the aggressor, and appeasement is a generally unsuccessful strategy.

It depends on the purposes of the actor and the purpose of the strategy.

The Amnesty report doesn't change my question though: Russian leadership could end this right now by returning its armies home.

Not really. The only way this ends is if Europe and Russia cooperate to sell gas. Both parties have to agree.

The actual war is related but not directly needed to end the energy problem.

Even if Russia surrendered there would still need to be cooperation to resume gas sales

This seems to be a technically. If Russia withdraws from Ukraine tonight then tomorrow Europe would be far more like to take significant steps to get the gas and payment flowing.

More likely maybe but there are probably technical hurdles now too. Embargo’s don’t always get lifted. Russia would be forced to pay reputations, and parts aren’t available or repair so can’t be used immediately. It would take months or years to unwind this.

Doubly down on the war is unlikely to produce a better outcome, for anyone.

My points is that the immediate future (3 months) has already been decided in terms of gas prices and availability. Actions now could not meaningful affect that

Well, I was not going to change your question. Why would I?

I'm just going to draw attention to the situation both sides "could put an end to this today, but they won't, because the loss of face is worse than the loss of life."

Russia is throttling the throughput although there are no sanctions for gas and all contracts with the German side are still in place.

Russia's behaviour is as if you had announced to cancel your internet contract next year and they suddenly throttle your internet this year to spite you.

You're the one putting a spin on things and I wonder why.

And where would they buy the roubles? And with what? However you cut it, buying gas from Russia means sending them EUR somehow. So the rouble thing is just a divertion from the real issue, which is people dying in Ukraine.

People aren't dying on the territories controlled by Russia, unless there are shellings and saboteurs from Ukraine [1] [2] [3], and Zelensky doesn't seem to be interested in peace negotiations unless it's on his terms, which means the war can be propagated back into the territories that have already began to recover. Does it actually serve interests of common folks who could care less about their flag of the day?

[1] https://www.youtube.com/c/%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%83%D0%...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqcmvyHrmrmIC7nM1sA3_Uw/vid...

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMtEJAgFT2M

Well, it's democracy at stake. Doesn't it justify everything? Because if not, this example is not the biggest issue.

Anyway, a bit of hypocrisy doesn't hurt.

Would a democracy be practicing a genocide on its people for eight years and counting ? Would a democracy promote right wing extremism, much less arm them with heavy weaponry (eg 155mm shells and artillery)? Would a democracy embed such people and war criminals into its own military? To shoot its very own troops if they dared retreat from a suicidal order? Would a democracy shell a nuclear waste repository for days on end when this threatens a good portion of Europe with decades long lasting effects and a loss of major breadbasket region areas for agricultural production over these decades.

Tell me, what sort of democracy is this?

Would a democracy murder its own citizens and stage propaganda psyops to deceive the remainder of its population?

Would a democracy condone a project such as the below mentioned, and even be directly collaborate with its founder and members:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myrotvorets

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myrotvorets&actio...

Chechen proverb (allegedly) "A man is not the one who knows how to fight, but the one who knows exactly who his enemy is".

As far as I can tell, to get back a democracy you need to do away with a junta first.

It's childish to down vote this.

Sanctions are against Russia, Gazprom is “private” company…