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

European natural gas imports and storage reserves

bruegel.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 296 posts

Re: European natural gas imports and storage reserves

#61

Post by js8 »

stoltzmann wrote: post #37
roenxi wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

The US has not been marching NATO towards Russia. It's ex-eastern bloc countries willingly joining the alliance to be protected from Russian aggression. If Russia did not have a long history of invading their neighbors, there would be no need or will to join the alliance.

The alliance as such would not be a problem. The problem is that its key member, USA, is Russia's nemesis, and that the common NATO defense is based on nuclear retaliation (that's why there are automatic triggers).

I wouldn't mind if it was a military alliance of Russia neighbors and it disavowed the use of nuclear weapons. Then it would truly make the world safer, IMHO.

Re: European natural gas imports and storage reserves

#62

Post by wil421 »

gdy wrote: post #50
wil421 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh sure, I wonder why Eastern Europe wants to join NATO. Hmmm, I wonder why countries who were on the fence about joining NATO have suddenly fast tracked applications in 2022?

You are justifying an action by the reaction to it. It's like saying that Russia's invasion of Ukraine is justified by the Ukrainian drones and rockets attacking Russian cities [0] and villages near Ukrainian border. [0] https://t.me/zhest_belgorod/16230

Russia has been a prison of people’s for some time. I’m all for countries like Finland wanting to be neutral but Russia’s actions and out right threats of war really force their hands.

There’s a reason Belarus is the only real ally in the region.

Re: European natural gas imports and storage reserves

#63

Post by js8 »

iSnow wrote: post #48
Bayart wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has it ? What's the data point, beyond Hitler ? Because History has shown repeatedly and consistently that escalation is reckless and extremely costly.

>What's the data point, beyond Hitler ? Ukraine 2014. The West should have stopped Russia back then and there.

How do you show that such action would lead to fewer deaths and less suffering?

Re: European natural gas imports and storage reserves

#64

Post by pydry »

wil421 wrote: post #39
gdy wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Western Europe just learned a painful lesson that you can't trust Russia. " Russia learnt that it cannot trust West when NATO started expanding into Eastern Europe and ex-USSR not too long after Warsaw pact and the USSR dissolved. Quite strange to say that West 'trusted' Russia after it betrayed Russia.

Oh sure, I wonder why Eastern Europe wants to join NATO. Hmmm, I wonder why countries who were on the fence about joining NATO have suddenly fast tracked applications in 2022?

Russia used to be more on the fence about NATO too when it acted defensively - before Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.

The war crimes committed during the NATO Libyan intervention - with a deliberate emphasis on regime change and creating a failed state - sparked the same fear in Russia that the Ukraine invasion sparked in Finland.

Russia already went through a period of internal collapse and being ruled by an American puppet, too, so the feeling that "they could make it happen again" is pretty visceral.

Re: European natural gas imports and storage reserves

#65

Post by dnh44 »

iSnow wrote: post #45
gdy wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Western Europe just learned a painful lesson that you can't trust Russia. " Russia learnt that it cannot trust West when NATO started expanding into Eastern Europe and ex-USSR not too long after Warsaw pact and the USSR dissolved. Quite strange to say that West 'trusted' Russia after it betrayed Russia.

Russia has no say over Eastern Europ and ex-USSR countries. If they want to join NATO, there is nothing Russia can do. Justifying a war based on this is just very wrong.

I remember when I learned about the Cuban missile crisis as a kid (in America) my initial thought was to ask what moral right the US had in nearly starting a war in order to stop the Soviets from moving their missiles to Cuba when both the USSR and Cuba wanted that.

Thankfully for the world saner minds prevailed and a settlement was reached. The soviets turned their ships around and the US removed their missiles from Turkey.

Such a settlement unfortunately is no longer possible with the current situation.

Re: European natural gas imports and storage reserves

#66

Post by thatfrenchguy »

1ris wrote: post #8
roenxi wrote: post #6

Economies, when left alone, are about as resilient as cockroaches and much more brutal about securing themselves. The situation is a serious blow to the pride of the European politicians who look like they've been mishandling energy policy for years (where are the nuclear reactors?). But realistically they'll probably survive in practice. It'll be painful. The issue is that somehow the West has taken Iraq 2.0 and is…

>where are the nuclear reactors? In France. Mostly idling.

55% of French electricity as of right now: https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/FR?solar=false&remote=t...

Re: European natural gas imports and storage reserves

#67

Post by phicoh »

gdy wrote: post #60
iSnow wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia has no say over Eastern Europ and ex-USSR countries. If they want to join NATO, there is nothing Russia can do. Justifying a war based on this is just very wrong.

Just like Cuba wanted to host Soviet missiles in 1962. Oddly, the US didn't think 'there is nothing we can do' and was about to start WW3 over it.

That's obviously where Russia went wrong. The US made stupid mistakes when it comes to Cuba, but with the Soviet missiles they made it stick.

In contrast, Russia thought that could take over a country while Europe and the US would sit still. Then when that didn't happen, Russia didn't figure out that something was going wrong. So they got a complete economic boycott and they are letting Ukraine destroy most of the Russian army.

Soon Russia will be a country with no economy to speak of and no army.

Re: European natural gas imports and storage reserves

#68

Post by The_Colonel »

roenxi wrote: post #29
jeromegv wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There should be more serious grappling with why the Russians did this (and Crimea in 2014) than "Putin bad". Why don't you give us your explanation? It's just very odd to advocate for an appeasement policy when the aggressor keeps wanting more (first Crimea, then tried to take the whole Ukraine by going straight for the capital). It wasn't just Eastern Ukraine with Russian-speaking population, they went straight to…

Quoted post unavailable.

> We should all be lobbying for a large neutral buffer zone between US-aligned Europe and Russia, not expanding the alliance designed to destroy Russia towards Moscow.

Ukraine was neutral before 2014, somehow it didn't help. It didn't get invaded because they were about to join NATO, but because they started to orient themselves to the EU.

What you actually argue for, and what Putin is after, is to let Russia re-build its satellite system of countries dependent on Russia.

Re: European natural gas imports and storage reserves

#69

Post by red_trumpet »

roenxi wrote: post #25
KptMarchewa wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We need serious attempts and ongoing discussion about how to stop military escalation. History has shown us that appeasement is the worst possible policy.

The future will show large nuclear arsenals are the worst policy. It is not the 1930s and Russia is not Germany. The borders of the USSR have retreated over most of our lifetime, Moscow controlled all of Ukraine as recently as 1990 and gave it up more-or-less voluntarily. If the US can invade the middle east and not be called an authoritarian regime, I don't think we need to draw a red line at the Ukraine border agai…

> If the US can invade the middle east and not be called an authoritarian regime...

First, I wouldn't call this authoritarian[1] but imperialistic[2].

But semantics aside, I don't really get that line of argument. Do you think the US invading parts of the middle east was justified? If you do not, how can this comparison be used to justify Russia's invasion of Ukraine?

I do condemn both invasions!

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism

Re: European natural gas imports and storage reserves

#70

Post by sveme »

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #30
zibby8 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why LNG specifically? There are other sources of pipeline gas that aren’t coming from Russia.

What are other sources of pipeline gas? Where I live everything is LNG so I figured that all there is. What else can be transported and used in LNG lines?

Norway and the Netherlands are the largest provider of pipeline gas to Germany at the moment, for example.
Post reply on HN