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

121–130 of 296 posts

Re: European natural gas imports and storage reserves

#121

Post by js8 »

phicoh wrote: post #75
js8 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I disagree with your other comments, I totally agree with denuclearization. Expanding NATO (founded on nuclear deterrence paradigm) as a reaction to Russia is wrong.

As we can clearly see now, NATO does not need nuclear deterrence again Russia's conventional weapons. What protects, for example, the Baltic countries is not the threat that the US might take initiative to drop a nuclear bomb on Russia, no it is the vast conventional capabilities of the US. Just supplying a relatively small amount of weapons to Ukraine is enough to destroy most of the Russian army.

If NATO doesn't need nuclear weapons, one more reason to get rid of them. The truth is number of states that endorse nuclear weapons expands as NATO expands, and I see that as a security risk.

Re: European natural gas imports and storage reserves

#122

Post by nikolay »

iSnow wrote: post #115
nikolay wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, once of a sudden, Europe is fine with shale gas as long as it's from another country. Europe seems fine with gas from Qatar as well, which also is waging a cruel war in Yemen with tons of deliberate civilian casulties!

And what's wrong with stop-gap measures to prevent an energy crisis?

As we can see, sanctions and arm-twisting are not stopping the war, not weakening Russia. Not even politically given the recent elections in Russia! Even Ukraine keeps buying Russian gas and I can't recall any comment from otherwise very vocal Zenesky about it! If there are supply issues, is due to all the nonsense coming from EU, which only hurts it, not Russia. Even if EU deversifies from Russia, it will be at a dear price and it will take time and will only replace one dependency with another.

Re: European natural gas imports and storage reserves

#123

Post by js8 »

iSnow wrote: post #112
js8 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, our values seem to differ, then. I don't mind Russian expansion unless there are dead people in its wake. I think saving the lives should always trump the national pride.

>I don't mind Russian expansion unless there are dead people in its wake. Well, you can't have one without the other, there's clear evidence of that going back decades.

That's a different discussion, then. The point is, the onus is on whoever is doing the military intervention to prove that they will save more lives than they will destroy. This is very high bar to clear especially since the enemy is going to fight as well, and we do not know the future.

In general, I am in favor of nonviolent resistance (which might include economic sanctions, sabotages etc.) rather than military action. In fact, it is often easier to gain moral support that way.

However, I understand that many humans naturally choose the latter, for tribal reasons, despite it being overall a worse choice.

Re: European natural gas imports and storage reserves

#124

Post by wbsss4412 »

tablespoon wrote: post #119
bhaak wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What diplomatic off ramp does Russia need? There is a simple first step towards redemption and that is get out of Ukraine right now. Better yesterday. Western Europe just learned a painful lesson that you can't trust Russia. Eastern Europe tried to hammer that point into the brains of the other European politicians but it didn't work until now.

> What diplomatic off ramp does Russia need? One that saves face, to at least some degree. > There is a simple first step towards redemption and that is get out of Ukraine right now. Better yesterday. Simple for you, because you're not the one losing face For example, here's another "simple first step" for Europe "towards redemption" (in the eyes of the Russians): withdraw all military and financial support for Ukrai…

Your analysis is seemingly based in the notion that all viewpoints are equal valid, but an analysis of the war needs to be rooted in what’s right and what’s wrong.

Russia is fighting a war of aggression in Ukraine. Do they have interests there? Sure, but that doesn’t give them the right to invade and topple the government.

Before you ask, yes the US is extremely guilty of this exact same behavior, it is also wrong.

This war started because Putin won’t accept anything less then complete fealty from the leaders of Ukraine/Belarus, and the 2014 revolution that threw out Yanikovich meant that they didn’t have a leader that was 100% on their side in Ukraine.

Re: European natural gas imports and storage reserves

#125

Post by tablespoon »

wbsss4412 wrote: post #124
tablespoon wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What diplomatic off ramp does Russia need? One that saves face, to at least some degree. > There is a simple first step towards redemption and that is get out of Ukraine right now. Better yesterday. Simple for you, because you're not the one losing face For example, here's another "simple first step" for Europe "towards redemption" (in the eyes of the Russians): withdraw all military and financial support for Ukrai…

Your analysis is seemingly based in the notion that all viewpoints are equal valid, but an analysis of the war needs to be rooted in what’s right and what’s wrong. Russia is fighting a war of aggression in Ukraine. Do they have interests there? Sure, but that doesn’t give them the right to invade and topple the government. Before you ask, yes the US is extremely guilty of this exact same behavior, it is also wrong. T…

> Your analysis is seemingly based in the notion that all viewpoints are equal valid,

No, it's rooted in the notion that Russia has it's own POV, and it's that POV that will determine its actions. The GGP's "simple first step" is nonsense, because it didn't recognize that POV.

> but an analysis of the war needs to be rooted in what’s right and what’s wrong.

And if someone (like an adversary) doesn't share your views about what’s right and what’s wrong, they'll reject your analysis and any recommendations based on it.

Re: European natural gas imports and storage reserves

#126

Post by MomoXenosaga »

sveme wrote: post #70
steve_adams_86 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Netherlands is switching off. Serendipity: just before Ukraine war the political decision was made to end gas extraction. Germany is not happy about that.

Re: European natural gas imports and storage reserves

#127

Post by stoltzmann »

js8 wrote: post #121
phicoh wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As we can clearly see now, NATO does not need nuclear deterrence again Russia's conventional weapons. What protects, for example, the Baltic countries is not the threat that the US might take initiative to drop a nuclear bomb on Russia, no it is the vast conventional capabilities of the US. Just supplying a relatively small amount of weapons to Ukraine is enough to destroy most of the Russian army.

If NATO doesn't need nuclear weapons, one more reason to get rid of them. The truth is number of states that endorse nuclear weapons expands as NATO expands, and I see that as a security risk.

The poster you've replied to said

>NATO does not need nuclear deterrence again Russia's conventional weapons

NATO has more than enough capabilities to destroy Russia's conventional weaponry, but as Russia has nuclear weapons, NATO must also have them to keep parity.

Getting rid of nuclear weapons is impossible. Genie's out of the bottle.

Re: European natural gas imports and storage reserves

#128

Post by wbsss4412 »

tablespoon wrote: post #125
wbsss4412 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your analysis is seemingly based in the notion that all viewpoints are equal valid, but an analysis of the war needs to be rooted in what’s right and what’s wrong. Russia is fighting a war of aggression in Ukraine. Do they have interests there? Sure, but that doesn’t give them the right to invade and topple the government. Before you ask, yes the US is extremely guilty of this exact same behavior, it is also wrong. T…

> Your analysis is seemingly based in the notion that all viewpoints are equal valid, No, it's rooted in the notion that Russia has it's own POV, and it's that POV that will determine its actions. The GGP's "simple first step" is nonsense, because it didn't recognize that POV. > but an analysis of the war needs to be rooted in what’s right and what’s wrong. And if someone (like an adversary) doesn't share your views…

> Your "simple first step" is nonsense

What are you talking about? I never said anything about a “simple first step”

> appeals to right and wrong are only persuasive for people who are aligned with you one that

Look, I’m all for understanding the other side, but don’t take empathy so far that morality has no meaning.

Re: European natural gas imports and storage reserves

#129

Post by serpix »

tablespoon wrote: post #125
wbsss4412 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your analysis is seemingly based in the notion that all viewpoints are equal valid, but an analysis of the war needs to be rooted in what’s right and what’s wrong. Russia is fighting a war of aggression in Ukraine. Do they have interests there? Sure, but that doesn’t give them the right to invade and topple the government. Before you ask, yes the US is extremely guilty of this exact same behavior, it is also wrong. T…

> Your analysis is seemingly based in the notion that all viewpoints are equal valid, No, it's rooted in the notion that Russia has it's own POV, and it's that POV that will determine its actions. The GGP's "simple first step" is nonsense, because it didn't recognize that POV. > but an analysis of the war needs to be rooted in what’s right and what’s wrong. And if someone (like an adversary) doesn't share your views…

The POV of Russia is genocide of Ukrainian people and culture. This is a POV that is not up for consideration or saving of face.

Re: European natural gas imports and storage reserves

#130

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

nikolay wrote: post #86
iSnow wrote: post #41

With a couple of FSRU terminals coming online during the next year, Europe might be OK, but it's going to be a problem. Storage is high for the season, and growing, but total gas delivered is very low. When the winter cold comes, storage will be depleted much faster than in the last years, and even if no gas shortages occur, storage will be very empty in spring - maybe too low to refill them till next winter.

So, once of a sudden, Europe is fine with shale gas as long as it's from another country. Europe seems fine with gas from Qatar as well, which also is waging a cruel war in Yemen with tons of deliberate civilian casulties!

Yemen isn't in Europe's backyard, and it isn't culturally European.

If it was, you'd probably get a similar reaction.

Post reply on HN