Quote (Black XistenZ @ Aug 16 2024 02:20pm)

This is only true until early 2022. Also note that it was unusual for Russia to not agree to more deliveries in 2021. Normally, a supplier is willing to send more than contractually obligated if the price is right; the Germans were willing to pay spot market prices in 2021, but Russia still didn't send more. I've posted the charts about the filling level of German gas storages many times in this thread; the Russians spent all of 2021 deliberately making it impossible to fill them up, deliberately made sure that Germany was going into the winter of 21/22 with dangerously low filling levels.



This is a brazen lie. Russia had already cut off the gas supplies through Nord Stream 1 months before it was blown up, using the flimsiest of excuses.


There is no denying that the German/European energy policies from the mid-2000s through 2022 were a disaster. It was a mistake to bet on spot market prices remaining below the prices which long-term contracts with Russia would have enshrined. It was a mistake to run headfirst into a strategic dependence on a single supplier. It was a mistake for the country's industry to rest its entire business model on the perpetual availability of cheap energy while falling behind on innovation and competitiveness.

But just for the record: multidecade contracts with Americans and Qatar, while more expensive, still offer a strategic advantage. The Americans are allies, Qatar is no military threat to Europe.



And do what? German arms supplies aren't vital to Ukraine; the war will go on even if Germany wanted Ukraine to surrender. A resumption of normal pipeline shipments is completely unthinkable while the war rages on. And even if it ended, Russia's infrastructure has taken damage from lying idle for years. Some LNG is already being shipped to Germany/Europe today (after being relabeled in India or w/e). Also, why would Russia agree to favorable terms after everything that happened? If Germany folded now and came crawling back to Putin, he would have all the leverage in the world and fuck them in the ass during the negotiations.


This is a classical example of the concept of path dependency. It would have been far and away the best solution to prevent this war from ever breaking out, but now that it has happened, there is no easy or quick way back. The best Germany/Europe can hope for is that some kind of "fair" peace can be negotiated and economic relations with Russia can be strengthened again, some 5-10 years down the road. They will, of course, never go back to pre-war levels of dependence on Russia, though. And a peace treaty isn't realistic right now, either, since both sides show no intentions of letting up.

Quote (Djunior @ 16 Aug 2024 14:53)

NATO welcomed Ukraine back in 2008, that's the reason Russia pressured the EU, squeezing the gas supply eventually.

It's clear the Russians didn't really want to play that card because of the revenue loss which is why they came up with excuses when the squeeze eventually happened.

If you believe that's not the case then tell me what other reason would Russia have to risk their international trade relations with their biggest customers.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Aug 16 2024 03:05pm)

Delusions of grandeur? Anyway, Nord Stream 1 was signed in 2005, long before the possibility of a Ukrainian NATO membership was on the table.

Imho, Russia miscalculated in 2022 when it finally pulled the trigger on the full-scale invasion. They thought the West was weak and would run away with its tail between its legs, like it had done 7 months earlier in Afghanistan. They imho thought that the Euros would ultimately not be willing to risk a loss of Russian gas supplies and only pay lip service to the support of Ukraine, but not be willing to make economic sacrifices for the geostrategic cause.

Quote (Djunior @ 16 Aug 2024 15:20)

NATO had been expanding round after round look at the map you can safely bet that Ukraine was already on the table before 2008 (unofficially) and that the Russians at the very least expected it to happen. Again, look at the map.

It has nothing to do with signing NS 1, we're talking about squeezing the gas supplies in 2021 or whenever it started which was way later than 2008 or 2014 even which is what I pointed out (they saved that card to the very last).

You didn't give another reason why the Russians would risk their trade relations with the West.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Aug 16 2024 03:33pm)

You're assuming that Russia is a trade nation first, one whose default priority is unimpeded free trade, although all historic precedent shows that Russia instead is a militaristic empire whose default approach to geostrategy is military conquest.

The squeezing of gas supplies to the bare contractual minimum from 2021 was clearly in preparation of the invasion. It is no coincidence that they pulled the trigger in the middle of winter, at a time when German gas storages (on which a lot of neighboring countries also depend!) were dangerously low and when NS2 had just been completed. In hindsight, Xi kinda fucked it up when he asked Putin to delay the invasion until after the Beijing Winter Olympics.

We have already debated the point about NATO expansion back and forth so many times. At the end of the day, these Eastern European nations couldn't fucking wait to finally join NATO. Gee, I wonder why...
And again... if NATO moving up to Russia's borders was their main concern, why are they so seemingly unbothered by 1400km of new NATO border with Finland which they got as a result of this war? Heck, NATO is now within midrange of St. Petersburg, Russia's second largest city and Putin's hometown. That's closer than NATO would have gotten to any major Russian city via Ukrainian NATO membership.

Quote (Djunior @ 16 Aug 2024 15:47)

Fist bold: No I'm not assuming anything I'm pointing out that NS project was huge and very lucrative, for both sides actually not just for Russia.

Quote

Second bold: Of course not why would they need to squeeze the gas supplies before the invasion when they control the flow and could've just cut it completely. Weird argument

Quote

Third bold: Has nothing to do with countries wanting to join after the occupation by the USSR after WW2 (WW2 caused the occupation in the first place).

Quote

We're talking about geo-politics and the question is if it's good policy to try corner a geo-political rival that happens to be one of the biggest nuclear powers on Earth. Saying well those countries wanted it is not an excuse.

Quote

Ukraine was a bridge too far NATO should've known better.
E: And again Finland =/= Ukraine I don't know why you still bring this up

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Aug 16 2024 04:38pm)

NS2 was a huge loss for Russia. They sunk billions of dollars into it (quite literally) without ever getting their RoI. NS1 was fine, although it didn't do anything that the already existing pipelines couldn't (from a purely economic pov).

Quote

Gazprom invested more than half of the pipeline cost while the remaining was invested jointly by Engie, OMV, Royal Dutch Shell, Uniper and Wintershall.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Aug 16 2024 04:38pm)

Because completely closing the gas tap is a hostile act and ruins the Western trust in the reliability of them as its primary gas supplier. Closing the gas tap was the figurative 'nuclear option'. Back in 2021, they still thought the West would back off and let them get away with their invasion of Ukraine, still thought that trade relations would survive this conflict. That's why they went with the much more face-saving option of not shipping more than contractually obligated.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Aug 16 2024 04:38pm)

Russia and later the USSR had already invaded/annexed places like Finland, Ukraine, parts of Poland and the Baltics during the 1910s through 1930s, before the country entered WW2. They were already an expansionist empire before the nazis forced them to go into all-out wartime footing, which subsequently enabled them to steamroll the entire eastern half of Eruope.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Aug 16 2024 04:38pm)

Once more, the idea that these are sovereign nations who are free to pick their alliances doesn't seem to cross your mind. In your mind, all of Eastern Europe seems to be nothing but bargaining chips, faceless entities to which Russia has an eternal claim. :rolleyes:

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Aug 16 2024 04:38pm)

What's the difference between NATO troops massing or NATO missiles being stationed on the Finnish/Russian border versus the Ukrainian/Russian border? You are the one arguing that NATO is the big boogeyman which is threatening Russia with strategic encirclement and thus forcing their hand. If that premise were true, there should be no difference between Finnish and Ukrainian NATO membership.

Quote (Fnall @ Aug 16 2024 06:52pm)

https://i.gyazo.com/5ae90cf28d5c7b39f241580195b3a2f8.jpg

600k units ready, 1 million left.

When dear North Korean ally show up?

Time maybe referendum called? Local Russian says they want be with Ukraine anyway, don't like Putin