Losing one or two generations of oil and gas revenue is a gigantic cost, we're talking about trillions of dollars here. And even if Europe resumes trade with Russia to some degree, they will never again maneuver themselves into such an unhealthy dependence on Russian supplies like the one we had before this war. Simply put, leveraging this European dependence on cheap Russian gas was a trump card the Russians could play exactly one time. Compared to the situation before the war (Russia already controlling the Donbass and Crimea, Ukraine effectively being indefinitely stopped from joining NATO), I don't think the results from playing this card are too great.

What you euphemisticaly label "closer ties with Beijing" is a dangerous strategic dependence which effectively turns Russia into China's vassal. Furthermore, Russia's actions will only accelerate the transition away from fossils in the West. Yes, the whole net zero stuff is a pipedream, we will never become completely independent from fossils, but their share in our energy mix can and will definitely continue to dwindle - and the experience of the last 18 months will only accelerate this development. Which will once again increase Russia's dependence on China.

If the conflict ends with a peace treaty enshrining roughly the current lines, then Russia will have achieved the bare minimum to save face. Relative to how much they invested (financially and strategically), that's hardly a success. It might only seem like a "win" relative to the expectations which had cratered oh-so much over the course of the war.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Nov 1 2023 08:12am

To my mind there are alot of nuances to this statement.

1. The US blew up Nord Stream (according to most) otherwise, The US claim Ukraine Blew it up. Either way, the US has vetoed anyone investigating who did it. This means the US knows who did it. So either the US, or an Ally. Sorry but this is how my brain works.
2. It could be argued that the EU now has a dependence on Energy from another source. It is therefore reasonable to suggest that this source will also, in time, have issues with Europe, therefore to say that Europe won't go back to a cheaper (Russian) alternative, is presumptive.
3. As I understand it the EU still buying Russian Gas.

Your own chart says that Russian exports to the EU have fallen by 90%. So, roughly speaking, the bar for the EU would have been ten times larger just a year ago, dwarfing China and all the other non-EU markets.

On a different note, look at India and how there is no Russian gas getting to them. This confirms what I've repeatedly said in this thread: due to geography, India cannot replace the revenue from pipeline gas that Russia lost in Europe; China is the only customer they have left with whom trade volumes from pipeline gas can realistically be increased.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Nov 1 2023 08:35am

OK well, we already had the conversation that shoving Russia into the arms of China was probably not a big brain move by the US.

Agreed. It wasn't a big brain move by the Russians either, though.

didnt we already talk about the fact that oil and gas always make their way into the markets?

saudi arabia buys cheap diesel in russia and sells their own to europe for a premium, india is doing the same

europe is still buying LNG from russia

surely there was a cost for russia, but the effect of the sanctions is overrated

I dont mind debating this.

please outline why you think this is not in Russia's long term interests. When the left hand is slapping you and the right hand is giving you a hand shake, its like swimming downriver, albeit there may be a few bumps along the way.



The meaning of the word "effect" needs to be expanded here noting it is already agreed that sanctions do not generally lead to regime change / change in policy.

This post was edited by ferdia on Nov 1 2023 08:56am

This might be true for oil, whose primary method of transportation has always been by ship. It isn't true for natural gas, where transport by ship in the form of LNG is costly and has a very limited capacity, compared with pipelines.

I think for the sake of argument, there is no reason to disagree with your position. However, ultimately, to suggest that the EU wont go back in a few years for Russian resources does not seem to add up based on historic situations like this. Of course the war in the mdidle east might spiral out of control and it may make Ukraine look like Utopia.

This post was edited by ferdia on Nov 1 2023 08:58am