Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Russian gas flows to Europe

berthub.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 279 posts

Re: Russian gas flows to Europe

#241

Post by _kbh_ »

vfclists wrote: post #234
konschubert wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crimea belongs to Ukraine since 1990, this was recognised also by Russia. The Russian invasion was not inevitable, Russia could have chosen a path of friendship. I am stating facts, you are spreading misinformation.

You can't be friends with a country which commits joining a military alliance which puts your ports and navy under the control of your enemies. You seriously expect Russia to have its military and merchant ports in Crimea under NATO control as a sign of "friendship"? What kind of crack do you have in your pipe? If you want to be fair then you might as well have Crimea revert to Turkey as it was part of Ottoman Empire…

> You can't be friends with a country which commits joining a military alliance which puts your ports and navy under the control of your enemies.

It's a defensive alliance, one that is designed to stop Russia doing exactly what its doing now.

Russia does not get to decide what alliances its neighbours join. Russia does not get to invade, rape and slaughter innocent civilians just because it wants to.

Ukraine and Russia don't have to be friends just because they are neighbours.

Re: Russian gas flows to Europe

#242

Post by jhgb »

avar wrote: post #191
jhgb wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps. But saying with 20/20 hindsight of the 2020s that people of the 1970s should have made momentously different decisions for the future of whole national industries for decades to come doesn't feel any less arrogant to me. And that's even assuming that the international situation decades ago was the same as one of today, which it wasn't either.

I'm talking about what should be done today, not crying over the milk spilt in the 70s. I only mentioned the 70s to show how rapidly nuclear could be built to replace other energy sources. If you look at any longer term projections on the German or EU energy mix in the next 10-30 years, natural gas will still be critical to the energy mix in 2050 if current plans continue. E.g. [1] shows a nice summary of that. Thus…

If you're suggesting a reaction today, then I need to point out that globally, over the past decade, new renewable generation was being installed roughly 15x faster than new nuclear generation. So even that is yet another difference from the situation from the 1970s that makes the experience of 1970s inapplicable: we have choices today that we didn't have back then.

> natural gas will still be critical to the energy mix in 2050 if current plans continue. E.g. [1] shows a nice summary of that.

Being critical and being a large component are two different things -- and it's not that difficult to source smaller amounts of natural gas than what Germany uses today. As far as predictions for distant future are concerned...well, we know how e.g. IEA was able to botch those. So I really wouldn't take any predictions about 2050 for granted.

> Thus arguments like "efficient building codes" are a red herring. You'll still need to heat your efficiently insulated buildings.

Decreasing the energy required by a factor of five or so is not "a red herring". That's a massive change. Likewise, there's apparently a chance that by 2030, this will have been amended to require zero-energy buildings in the future.

Re: Russian gas flows to Europe

#243

Post by redeeman »

tim333 wrote: post #237
redeeman wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and why is it that we continue to do immense trade with china, given their treatment of various people? their extreme pollution(the green agenda is supposedly holier than the pope), why is it that we happily buy a gazillion trinkets from king pooh but putin is simply unacceptable in ALL ways. china is arguably far worse.

It's the rolling tanks into other people's countries thing.

so lets summize: organ harvesting: ok. concentration camps for ethnic minority: ok. rolling tanks: NO!

Re: Russian gas flows to Europe

#244

Post by toss1 »

elforce002 wrote: post #187
toss1 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely NOT. Appeasing the bully or tyrant leads only to more of the same. From the tyrant's perspective, what they did worked (gial achieved) and the opponents indicated that they are OK with it. Thus, they should try the next step they want. The reason this invasion happened was because there was no real push-back to the Crimea invasion. When would you propose that we start fighting back instrad of allowing Russ…

Are you Ukrainian? Because your take doesn't make sense. Do you really think Russia can afford going to war with literally half of the planet? If that's the case, NATO might as well send preemptive strikes (nukes, etc..) to avoid that scenario or probably Russia could foresee that and strike first since they are currently at war. The US was looking to buy petroleum from Venezuela. The same Venezuela they were vehemen…

>>Are you Ukrainian?

Thanks for the high compliment, but although I stand with the Ukrainians, I do not have that heritage. I also do not appreciate your insult to Ukranians as if it would be their take, and their desire for freedom from Russian tyranny is somehow senseless.

>>Do you really think Russia can afford going to war with literally half of the planet? In merely the past few weeks, Russian officials have specifically threatened Lithuania, Estonia, Poland and other areas, literally saying that these are 'historical Russian territories' and should be under Russia's control - the exact same justification for their current 24-Feb-2022 invasion of Ukraine.

Russia was not stopped after Chechnya, Georgia, Syria, Crimea, and other territories. Russia therefore assumes that since these advances were not strongly opposed, that more will be accepted. Since we are now opposing, if we do so successfully (push RUS out of every square inch of UKR territory), it will stop. If we yield, which is what Russia is counting upon, they will go further, at a time of their choosing. Not instantly, but they will not stop. This is being demonstrated at this moment.

>>If that's the case, NATO might as well send preemptive strikes (nukes, etc..) to avoid that scenario or probably Russia could foresee that and strike first since they are currently at war. This is not true and is an unnecessary and counterproductive escalation. Russia has already made lots of nuclear sabre-rattling about various topics such as Finland and Sweden joining NATO, yet been shown to be absolutely toothless. Russia does not want nukewar any more than we do, but they do want us to cower under that threat. The choice is simple, either back down and accept tyranny under their threats, or stand up and face the threat.

Again, Russia will not undertake these ongoing wars instantly but will do so at a time of their choosing. The message we want to send is not that we will wipe you out now, but that your future attempts will result not in the successes you have enjoyed, but only more costly failures.

>>This war is more complex than we think. The world is already in a second cold war ...

Of course this is more complex. IMO, we are already in WWIII and have been since at least 2014.

>>We are at "...hard times make strong men..." Cycle now.

Fully agree. Now is the time to stand up to authoritarianism, or democracy will be lost globally for at least generations, if not centuries or permanently.

Re: Russian gas flows to Europe

#245

Post by yucky »

ptr wrote: post #222
yucky wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a proxy war for the US. After all, Russia is not at war with Ukraine, it is at war in Ukraine, against NATO.

This is wrong, which even Putin has confessed. It’s all about Putin wanting to create a new Great Russia.

That doesn't contradict what I said though. Yes Putin wants to expand the Russian sphere of influence, and yes NATO is fighting against that in a proxy war led by the US, in Ukraine.

This isn't just Ukraine v Russia, hence the proxy war label is correct.

Re: Russian gas flows to Europe

#246

Post by dzhiurgis »

redeeman wrote: post #163
dzhiurgis wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"bends the knee" might be buying gas at 1/10th the price and considering it a huge win for the terrorist state called russia

and where is this magical supplier of gas that will sell at 1/10 market price? (asking for a friend!)

Russia has no choice of not selling at extraction cost - stopping production means losses for decades.

OPEC cartel will eventually collapse and it will be buyers market. Regulation can make it sooner.

Re: Russian gas flows to Europe

#247

Post by throwoutway »

hash872 wrote: post #114
_xnmw wrote: post #93

It's far too late to change this. You cannot restructure the energy sources of a whole continent in a few months or even years. This could've been fixed if the West had understood and reacted appropriately to the magnitude of the Russian threat about 10 years ago, as foreseen by academics like Stephen Cohen and businessmen like Bill Browder, instead of blindly falling for its own hubristic self-delusion (which contin…

1. 'The West' wasn't hubristic, Europe was. The US has been telling Europe to get off of Russian gas & oil for decades, under multiple administrations. Both parties have been extremely clear about this for over two decades now. 'I'm astounded at how many people continue to live in the 3rd fantasy of believing Ukraine could somehow "defeat" Russia while still avoiding WW3' 2. The US lost in Vietnam without using nukes…

America lost to Vietnam

America lost to Taliban

USSR lost to Afghanistan

All of these were insurgencies. Why can’t Russia lose to an insurgent Ukrainian population?

Is Russia willing to fight for 10 years?

Re: Russian gas flows to Europe

#248

Post by archagon »

_xnmw wrote: post #144
karpierz wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 2. we believed our leaders would have the sense to settle with Russia instead of destroying our country. What settlement could Ukraine have with Russia that wouldn't be the end of Ukraine? Russia is demanding that Ukraine allow part of its territory to secede and form "independent" nations, as well as have Ukraine avoid bolstering its ability to protect itself from its neighbours. Do you think those countries won't…

> What settlement could Ukraine have with Russia that wouldn't be the end of Ukraine? Any settlement would've been better than this. Every major city destroyed, 15% of the population emigrated.

It would seem that the Ukrainians disagree?

Re: Russian gas flows to Europe

#249

Post by archagon »

yucky wrote: post #188
_xnmw wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a proxy war. Russia is involved directly on its border. A proxy war is in a far off land.

It is a proxy war for the US. After all, Russia is not at war with Ukraine, it is at war in Ukraine, against NATO.

Russia is certainly at war with Ukraine.

Re: Russian gas flows to Europe

#250

Post by redeeman »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #246
redeeman wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and where is this magical supplier of gas that will sell at 1/10 market price? (asking for a friend!)

Russia has no choice of not selling at extraction cost - stopping production means losses for decades. OPEC cartel will eventually collapse and it will be buyers market. Regulation can make it sooner.

I dont know what will happen in the future, but as of right now, there is no way to buy at 1/10. Who knows, with the explosion in prices this year, it may well come down shitloads in the future, maybe near future, but that will then simply be market price, as it was 1 year ago when it was much much much cheaper.
Post reply on HN