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

141–150 of 296 posts

Re: European natural gas imports and storage reserves

#141

Post by trasz »

MomoXenosaga wrote: post #132
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…

It works both ways you know. Europe cannot afford to lose face either. Imagine EU can be blackmailed by Russia! Wouldn't stand a chance against the US or China. The EU clearly believes they can win this fight so why should it withdraw support to Ukraine?

Europe has already been blackmailed by Russia - when they invaded Ukraine last time, in 2014. That's how we know Russia can only be dealt with by force: because we've tried to do it the other way and it failed terribly.

Re: European natural gas imports and storage reserves

#142

Post by trasz »

rjzzleep wrote: post #17
starkd wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fairness, there are many who got it wrong on China. Not just Kissinger. Many made a lot of money off of China as an emerging market. Trying to calm the situation down in Ukraine is to his credit. Few seem to be calling for a ceasefire. On the contrary, they seem to doing all they can to scuttle any kind of agreement.

I don't like the guy, and I absolutely don't agree with most of what him and his administration did. But the one thing that they got right(which every person outside of the collective west seems to understand) is that only a complete madman would throw the biggest nuclear power, the biggest natural resource country and the biggest missile manufacturer in the world right into the arms of the biggest manufacturing powe…

One logical solution is to make sure Russia is no longer an useful asset, by splitting off its colonies.

Re: European natural gas imports and storage reserves

#143

Post by asdajksah2123 »

blub wrote: post #83
pydry wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

Afaik the NATO mission in Yugoslavia and Libya were the two big ones. Both misused NATO and were not defensive in nature.

And none of them were targeted against Russia.

For the obvious reason that NATO countries are largely rich, peaceful, and doing pretty ok and are not gonna waste their time and energy attacking a nation with f'ing nuclear weapons.

Re: European natural gas imports and storage reserves

#144

Post by pydry »

distances wrote: post #105
pydry wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This probably means that your country (maybe reluctantly, maybe not) lent its support to the Iraqi occupation under pressure from the US government. That was due to those competing spheres of influence. When you join a criminal gang for protection youve gotta prove your loyalty to the top dog and respect his power. The dynamics arent all that different to when a 15 year old kid joins a gang in south central - sometim…

It's Finland, so not that much to do with Iraq either. Instead, Finland has a lot of experience about being in the USSR sphere of influence (see Finlandization), and thus I wholeheartedly support Ukraine's right to choose their own alignment. > When you join a criminal gang for protection I think we agree that in this context you choose to join a gang, and the opposing gang doesn't get to prevent you from leaving the…

>thus I wholeheartedly support Ukraine's right to choose their own alignment.

I would agree but I would also argue that unless you also wholeheartedly support Crimea and the Donbass's right to choose their alignment (something Kiev and the west both publicly reject), you are probably somewhat halfhearted in your belief in people's right to self determination.

This is the litmus test of whether you are just flashing a geopolitical gang sign or demonstrating an actual commitment to democracy. Most Westerners will do the former, and are, for example, enthusiastic supporters of a (NATO) troop presence acting as an enabler for Kosovo's referendum.... while simultaneously supporting Kiev's position of "Crimeans dont get to choose".

Re: European natural gas imports and storage reserves

#145

Post by asdajksah2123 »

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.

Yeah, but the Americans pinky swore that they wouldn't expand NATO in the early 90s in an early negotiating round.

That's how negotiations work. Everything the west proposes at any point of negotiations must be honored irrespective of whether it was actually an agreed upon outcome of that negotiation or not. And if Russia blatantly breaks the agreed upon, written, formally accepted points of the negotiation that doesn't count.

Re: European natural gas imports and storage reserves

#146

Post by i_no_can_eat »

yabqk wrote: post #134
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yemen isn't in Europe's backyard, and it isn't culturally European. If it was, you'd probably get a similar reaction.

Ukraine is as culturally European as Qatar.

That's a very ridiculous thing to say.

Re: European natural gas imports and storage reserves

#147

Post by alexvoda »

gdy wrote: post #34
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.

"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.

Quit repeating this crap. There was no agreement for NATO to not expand eastward and even Gorbachev stated there was no such agreement. You are just repeating the bullshit spread by Pozner and Mearsheimer. It is still bullshit propaganda no matter how many people repeat it.

I fell for it too, at the start of the war, and then I tried to combat it each time I came across it.

Re: European natural gas imports and storage reserves

#148

Post by jltsiren »

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.

Based on Russian performance at the start of the invasion, a similar force would have overrun the Baltic states. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are small and geographically isolated. They are surrounded by Russia, Belarus, and the Baltic Sea. Any attempt to support and supply them would have to go through the small gap between Kaliningrad and Belarus, or over the Baltic Sea, which would be heavily contested.

The geographic situation largely explains why the Baltic States support the NATO membership of Sweden and Finland so strongly, and why Russia is opposed to it. With Sweden and Finland in NATO, the Baltic Sea will become NATO's internal sea. NATO would likely have naval and air superiority over it, which would keep supply lines open and give them a chance to defend the Baltic States with conventional weapons.

Re: European natural gas imports and storage reserves

#149

Post by nivenkos »

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!

And Azerbaijan...
Post reply on HN