European Energy Crisis

Beans

Full Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Messages
3,515
Location
Midwest, USA
Supports
Neutral
Didn't want to put this stuff in the UK thread.

Russia cutting off Nord Stream likely means it's about to get worse.

" The $279 billion European governments have recently allocated to help small consumers is already not enough. Britain’s National Energy Action charity projects an increase from 4.5 million U.K. households to a full 8.5 million will face energy poverty this winter. Kosovo is already suffering rolling blackouts, two hours off for every six hours on. Brown and blackouts are also expected in other European countries." https://time.com/6209272/europes-energy-crisis-getting-worse/

Power-intensive aluminum smelters say they need government support to survive. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...s-aluminum-smelters-are-struggling-to-survive

European Stocks Slump as Energy Crisis Deepens Ahead of ECB https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...s-slump-as-energy-crisis-deepens-ahead-of-ecb
 

Rajma

Full Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2012
Messages
8,580
Location
Lithuania
I have been saying this from the day one but it’s the doing of EU leaders. Had they acted decisively with regards to arming Ukraine this energy crisis would have never happened. The indecisiveness in terms of major military support which would have ended this war by now have allowed Russia to blackmail the EU as it now plays a waiting game.
 

Abizzz

Full Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
7,642
Europe will need to learn to live without Russian energy. Arming Ukraine to the point that Russia sends more gas this winter is about as likely as me winning the lottery 3 times in a row.
(We should help them defend themeselves but the Ukranian soldiers aren't our 'energy fighters'; they fight for their freedom)
 

groovyalbert

it's a mute point
Joined
Feb 14, 2013
Messages
9,698
Location
London
For many in Europe, the only way to fix this in the short-term is to rely once more on Russian oil and gas, which lays further foundations for longer-term and far more serious issues in the future.

How Germany turned its back on nuclear with such entirety is beyond me.
 

Beans

Full Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Messages
3,515
Location
Midwest, USA
Supports
Neutral
I have been saying this from the day one but it’s the doing of EU leaders. Had they acted decisively with regards to arming Ukraine this energy crisis would have never happened. The indecisiveness in terms of major military support which would have ended this war by now have allowed Russia to blackmail the EU as it now plays a waiting game.
The best we can hope is to push the Russian forces back to their borders, but that doesn't mean they'll stop fighting, or start supplying energy again.

They have all the potatoes and energy they need to stay alive, if little else. But few countries can claim energy AND food independence, besides Russia and the US. There's little that can be done to change that, Germany spent 2 trillion on renewable energy infrastructure and still they need huge amounts of energy supplies.
 

Rajma

Full Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2012
Messages
8,580
Location
Lithuania
The best we can hope is to push the Russian forces back to their borders, but that doesn't mean they'll stop fighting, or start supplying energy again.

They have all the potatoes and energy they need to stay alive, if little else. But few countries can claim energy AND food independence, besides Russia and the US. There's little that can be done to change that, Germany spent 2 trillion on renewable energy infrastructure and still they need huge amounts of energy supplies.
Pushing back Russia to their borders = fall of Putin’s regime, meaning that they will want some of the sanctions lifted in return for something (energy).
 

neverdie

Full Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2018
Messages
2,405
I have been saying this from the day one but it’s the doing of EU leaders. Had they acted decisively with regards to arming Ukraine this energy crisis would have never happened. The indecisiveness in terms of major military support which would have ended this war by now have allowed Russia to blackmail the EU as it now plays a waiting game.
none of that is true. the european leaders have been arming ukraine as you'd expect. having expedited that earlier in some way would have made little to no difference because russia is not going to suffer a military defeat which spills over into its own border. it might lose in ukraine, which is what people are banking on, but you'll see millions of russians conscripted and mobilization on a scale not seen in nearly a century before that threatens to become a loss within russia proper. bear in mind that the americans have delivered more in military aid to ukraine than most countries spend on their entire military apparatus. roughly the same as the british military budget within a fiscal year, or not far off it.

as soon as the european governments decided not to buy russian gas, this was always going to happen. remember that it was the eu states which sanctioned russia, not the other way around. you can argue the pros and cons of that all day long, but such is the fact. i would argue that as part of the broader transition from one economic system to another, such makes sense insofar as acceleration goes. i would also argue that this is an unfortunate way of doing it but it had to happen at some point.

people were saying that as soon as it came to winter this exact scenario would unfold. none of it is even slightly suprising. this is a long transition and this is a long war. european states acting quicker after the russian invasion, as if they didn't act quick anyway, would have made precisely no difference in terms of the energy crisis we see now.
 

VorZakone

What would Kenny G do?
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
32,995
Is this the worst crisis for Europe since 2008?
 

Smores

Full Member
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
25,547
Pushing back Russia to their borders = fall of Putin’s regime, meaning that they will want some of the sanctions lifted in return for something (energy).
People have been saying this for months now. In fact nearly every other post in the other thread was claiming they'd topple in days. Didn't seem likely then and doesn't seem likely now.
 

Abizzz

Full Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
7,642
Is this the worst crisis for Europe since 2008?
Reading the news one could be under that impression... However we just had hundreds of thousands die to covid these past 2 1/2 years ...
 

Rajma

Full Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2012
Messages
8,580
Location
Lithuania
People have been saying this for months now. In fact nearly every other post in the other thread was claiming they'd topple in days. Didn't seem likely then and doesn't seem likely now.
Yeah people have been saying for months that Ukraine receives very little heavy weapons to actually drive Russia out. I don’t get your post? They only get just about enough to stall any Russian advances.
 

Rajma

Full Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2012
Messages
8,580
Location
Lithuania
none of that is true. the european leaders have been arming ukraine as you'd expect. having expedited that earlier in some way would have made little to no difference because russia is not going to suffer a military defeat which spills over into its own border. it might lose in ukraine, which is what people are banking on, but you'll see millions of russians conscripted and mobilization on a scale not seen in nearly a century before that threatens to become a loss within russia proper. bear in mind that the americans have delivered more in military aid to ukraine than most countries spend on their entire military apparatus. roughly the same as the british military budget within a fiscal year, or not far off it.

as soon as the european governments decided not to buy russian gas, this was always going to happen. remember that it was the eu states which sanctioned russia, not the other way around. you can argue the pros and cons of that all day long, but such is the fact. i would argue that as part of the broader transition from one economic system to another, such makes sense insofar as acceleration goes. i would also argue that this is an unfortunate way of doing it but it had to happen at some point.

people were saying that as soon as it came to winter this exact scenario would unfold. none of it is even slightly suprising. this is a long transition and this is a long war. european states acting quicker after the russian invasion, as if they didn't act quick anyway, would have made precisely no difference in terms of the energy crisis we see now.
Russia is not mobilizing forget that would be the end of the regime right there, and what weapons are they going to provide for untrained personal? They’re already all-in, please stop spreading propaganda.
 

Beans

Full Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Messages
3,515
Location
Midwest, USA
Supports
Neutral
For many in Europe, the only way to fix this in the short-term is to rely once more on Russian oil and gas, which lays further foundations for longer-term and far more serious issues in the future.

How Germany turned its back on nuclear with such entirety is beyond me.
Actually just found an article about that:

"The vision of the fantastic new world of the future was born eight years ago, on March 11, 2011, the day an earthquake-triggered tsunami damaged the nuclear power plant in Fukushima, Japan. The disaster led Chancellor Angela Merkel and her cabinet to resolve to phase out nuclear power in Germany. It was an historic event and an historic decision.

"But the sweeping idea has become bogged down in the details of German reality. The so-called Energiewende, the shift away from nuclear in favor of renewables, the greatest political project undertaken here since Germany's reunification, is facing failure. In the eight years since Fukushima, none of Germany's leaders in Berlin have fully thrown themselves into the project, not least the chancellor. Lawmakers have introduced laws, decrees and guidelines, but there is nobody to coordinate the Energiewende, much less speed it up."

"Germany's Federal Court of Auditors is even more forthright about the failures. The shift to renewables, the federal auditors say, has cost at least 160 billion euros in the last five years. Meanwhile, the expenditures "are in extreme disproportion to the results," Federal Court of Auditors President Kay Scheller said last fall, although his assessment went largely unheard in the political arena. Scheller is even concerned that voters could soon lose all faith in the government because of this massive failure .

Surveys document the transformation of this grand idea into an even grander frustration. Despite being hugely accepting initially, Germans now see it as being too expensive, too chaotic and too unfair."

"Politicians are quick to label projects as being in the national interest, but this one truly is -- especially given that environmental leadership has become a key element of German identity. A majority of Germans were once proud of the turn away from nuclear and toward renewables, a pride political leaders could have capitalized on."

"German CO2 emissions have only slightly decreased this decade."

"Instead of explaining to voters why it is necessary to conduct such a grid to bring energy from the windy north to the industrially strong south, politicians have wilted in the face of NIMBY protests. Indeed, almost everywhere such a power line tower or wind turbine is to be erected, officials are met with protest. Politicians have thus decided to put most of it underground, which is vastly more expensive and will take years longer to build."

"Germany is also falling short of its initial targets when it comes to the expansion of offshore wind parks. In the North Sea and Baltic Sea combined last year, the extra capacity that went online didn't even add up to one gigawatt -- 23 percent lower than the previous year. In mid-April, Merkel inaugurated the Arkona wind park off the coast of the Baltic Sea island of Rügen. But not even the charming images of people blowing into their toy windmills at the ceremony can hide the fact that not even offshore wind parks are a growth market anymore.

It is a systemic problem: Wind park operation and grid connection are not in the same hands, in contrast to places like Britain, for example. Coordination can be difficult, costs are high and potential goes unused. It is hardly surprising that nobody wants to generate electricity on the high seas if it isn't guaranteed that it can get to where it needs to go because the grid to southern Germany doesn't exist."

https://www.spiegel.de/internationa...the-road-to-a-renewable-future-a-1266586.html
 

neverdie

Full Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2018
Messages
2,405
that would be the end of the regime right there
your entire thesis is that sending more weapons earlier would lead to the downfall of the regime. if the regime is threatened with downfall, then why wouldn't they opt for conscription as such would make no difference?

they're not "all-in", either. there's a reason they haven't conscripted. it's because they're not all in. and no one wants to get to that point, on either side, imo.

unfortunately, it is you and various others who have followed the war in a match-day style which have swallowed myopic messaging.
 

Rajma

Full Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2012
Messages
8,580
Location
Lithuania
your entire thesis is that sending more weapons earlier would lead to the downfall of the regime. if the regime is threatened with downfall, then why wouldn't they opt for conscription as such would make no difference?

they're not "all-in", either. there's a reason they haven't conscripted. it's because they're not all in. and no one wants to get to that point, on either side, imo.

unfortunately, it is you and various others who have followed the war in a match-day style which have swallowed myopic messaging.
How does make any sense what you said? The mobilization would instantly be the end of the regime, that’s why it never happened up to this day.
 

sun_tzu

The Art of Bore
Joined
Aug 23, 2010
Messages
19,536
Location
Still waiting for the Youthquake
I have been saying this from the day one but it’s the doing of EU leaders. Had they acted decisively with regards to arming Ukraine this energy crisis would have never happened. The indecisiveness in terms of major military support which would have ended this war by now have allowed Russia to blackmail the EU as it now plays a waiting game.
I have to say you make a good point because I doubt any of us would be worrying about our gas bills when we were dealing with the aftermath of being nuked

certainly a more nuaned decision than just send lots of weapons and hope the Ukrainians win and hope the Russians are happy to take a defat
 

neverdie

Full Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2018
Messages
2,405
How does it any make any sense what you said? The mobilization would instantly be the end of the regime, that’s why it never happened up to this day.
you say, send weapons earlier = russian regime would have fallen.

i'm saying, you will see mass conscription before a loss in ukraine becomes a loss in russia proper. at which point the threat of regime change is nullified because it would exist via the possibility of military defeat in the first instance.

there's no inconsistency.
 

Beans

Full Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Messages
3,515
Location
Midwest, USA
Supports
Neutral
Pushing back Russia to their borders = fall of Putin’s regime, meaning that they will want some of the sanctions lifted in return for something (energy).
Apparently the US is worried it would mean Russia using its arsenal for small, tactical nuclear devices on the battlefield.

Russia seem to feel this is an existential battle for survival, as they don't believe they will be free from invasion in the next 100 years, and they feel their current borders won't be defensible with the population set to drop significantly in the decades ahead. Military age population will be half what it is now in 30 years, supposedly.

This is apparently why the US isn't doing more, they are scared to beat Russia too quickly, they feel a stalemate won't justify Putin using tactical nuclear weapons. Thus the economic war, so NATO doesn't need to fight as well.
 

Rajma

Full Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2012
Messages
8,580
Location
Lithuania
I have to say you make a good point because I doubt any of us would be worrying about our gas bills when we were dealing with the aftermath of being nuked

certainly a more nuaned decision than just send lots of weapons and hope the Ukrainians win and hope the Russians are happy to take a defat
It’s incredible how far reaching Russian fear propaganda is, but it’s also stems from the fact that people in the west don’t know how Putin’s regime operates. Russia is never starting any nuclear war, despite what they want you to believe.
 

Beans

Full Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Messages
3,515
Location
Midwest, USA
Supports
Neutral
it's the same crisis. we're still dealing with the fallout.
I remember mentioning to my partner last year or the year before, who doesn't care about world events or politics at all, that Russia has actually been at war with Ukraine since 2008, and people act like it's not happening (when discussing the proxy war with Syria nearby). Russia has been busy for a while, this is an extention of what happened in Georgia and Chechnya as well.
 

Rajma

Full Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2012
Messages
8,580
Location
Lithuania
you say, send weapons earlier = russian regime would have fallen.

i'm saying, you will see mass conscription before a loss in ukraine becomes a loss in russia proper. at which point the threat of regime change is nullified because it would exist via the possibility of military defeat in the first instance.

there's no inconsistency.
What? They won’t opt for general mobilization because that would mean providing guns to people that don’t want to fight and by large are against Putin (just staying quiet because of fear currently) while depleted Russian army is stuck in Ukraine. By fall of the regime I mean change of main characters but that wouldn’t result in Putin’s death, what would result in that is actually a general mobilization and that’s why it will never happen.
 

VorZakone

What would Kenny G do?
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
32,995
I wonder if European governments can implement solutions fast enough before people and businesses go bankrupt.
 

Beans

Full Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Messages
3,515
Location
Midwest, USA
Supports
Neutral
It’s incredible how far reaching Russian fear propaganda is, but it’s also stems from the fact that people in the west don’t know how Putin’s regime operates. Russia is never starting any nuclear war, despite what they want you to believe.
No, I don't think Russia will start a nuclear war either. If Putin wanted to end the world he could have done it ages ago.

But he might use tactical nukes, and that is messy. The US would respond, though not with tactical nukes as that's not in our arsenal. We'd rather avoid that, and unfortunately our leadership will accept Ukranian deaths to assure this doesn't happen.
 

neverdie

Full Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2018
Messages
2,405
What? They won’t opt for general mobilization because that could potentially mean providing guns to people that don’t want to fight and by large are against Putin (just staying quiet because of fear currently) while depleted Russian army is stuck in Ukraine. By fall of the regime I mean change of main characters but that wouldn’t result in Putin’s death, what would result in that is actually a general mobilization and that’s why it will never happen.
they won't opt for general mobilization because it really would then be "all in". that's a point no one wants to get to whether you're russian, ukrainian, or european or american.

it doesn't matter who takes control post-putin inasmuch as the war in ukraine goes. all of the opposition types support the action in ukraine with many having called for it prior to putin actually invading. this idea that you can shuffle one or two or one or two dozen people in the kremlin and all of a sudden you arrive at some completely different material calculus for the russian state is an illusion. the poster above is correct. russia views this as existential. it moves beyond the putin regime and always has. this is also something we have always known.

anyway, if you sanction russian gas and then face an energy crisis, despite the fact that you still use russian energy as the sanctions don't move into full effect for a few months, then you have yourself to blame. the energy crisis existed before this invasion but has changed shape since. the european countries didn't have to sanction energy imports. they could have continued to support ukraine via nato as expected and done business with russian energy companies. that's what turkey is doing.

these were called self-sanctions from the start and i don't see how that isn't true.
 
Last edited:

Rajma

Full Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2012
Messages
8,580
Location
Lithuania
they won't opt for general mobilization because it really would then be "all in". that's a point no one wants to get to whether you're russian, ukrainian, or european or american.

it doesn't matter who takes control post-putin inasmuch as the war in ukraine goes. all of the opposition types support the action in ukraine with many having called for it prior to putin actually invading. this idea that you can shuffle one or two or one or two dozen people in the kremlin and all of a sudden you arrive at some completely different material calculus for the russian state is an illusion. the poster above is correct. russia views this as existential. it moves beyond the putin regime and always has. this is also something we have always known.
What does general mobilization solve when you have no weapons or they gonna attack bare handed? By all-in I mean the weapon arsenal, it has been deployed in full or very close it at this point. These take years to produce in normal environment let alone one that is constrained by heavy sanctions.
 

neverdie

Full Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2018
Messages
2,405
What does general mobilization solve when you have no weapons or they gonna attack bare handed? By all-in I mean the weapon arsenal, it has been deployed in full or very close it at this point. These take years to produce in normal environment let alone one that is constrained by heavy sanctions.
yes, the russians ran out of bullets and guns in may iirc. this is one of those jokes that continues despite all evidence to the contrary. it's propaganda.
 

Smores

Full Member
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
25,547
Yeah ban Ukraine talk from this one, let the armchair generals discuss their military tactics in the other thread.
 

Rajma

Full Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2012
Messages
8,580
Location
Lithuania
yes, the russians ran out of bullets and guns in may iirc. this is one of those jokes that continues despite all evidence to the contrary. it's propaganda.
Ok, I see you have reverted having no argument based reply. Thanks. If you would just look at the heat maps in the east/south of Ukraine alone you would see that Russia is firing a lot less heavy artillery now than previously in the war.
 

frostbite

Full Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2021
Messages
3,296
I have been saying this from the day one but it’s the doing of EU leaders. Had they acted decisively with regards to arming Ukraine this energy crisis would have never happened. The indecisiveness in terms of major military support which would have ended this war by now have allowed Russia to blackmail the EU as it now plays a waiting game.
Yes, Russia is already at war with Europe.

Europe tries to not take any painful decisions because it still pretends there is no war, it is only some Ukrainians dying, nothing to do with Europe. The only problem is the "energy crisis".
 

neverdie

Full Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2018
Messages
2,405
Ok, I see you have reverted having no argument based reply. Thanks. If you would just look at the heat maps in the east/south of Ukraine alone you would see that Russia is firing a lot less heavy artillery now than previously in the war.
the war is going to last for many more months to come. it's wishful thinking to pretend otherwise. it is a bit like wanting something to be true so badly that you materialize it into a reality for yourself. look at the actual war and the positions. moving at a snail's pace and this is what everyone who seems to have a clue expected and has said for months.

the only point i'm making on russia is that we self-sanctioned. we didn't have to not buy russian gas, we decided to not buy it. that gas is being sold elsewhere and the russians are still making enormous profits despite having slashed prices because demand has risen and they control supply.

Europe tries to not take any painful decisions because it still pretends there is no war, it is only some Ukrainians dying, nothing to do with Europe. The only problem is the "energy crisis".
hundreds of billions, if not trillions when all is said and done, seems like a rather painful decision to make. opting not to use nordstream and going for coal and potential energy blackouts seems somewhat painful. for some people, european countries remote from the war can never do enough. as if they fail a purity test if they can't make do without heating and electricity because of a war either many hundreds or in some cases thousands of miles away from their border.

on topic. i thought we'd see economic packages first trialled during the pandemic and that seems to be the case. i've considered for a long time now that the pandemic had many sides to it. aside from being an actual pandemic which killed many people, it had the social experiment side whereby states played with macro economic policies aimed at stabilizing industry during transitional periods. that's what we're looking at here and it will likely continue for some years to come.
 

spiriticon

Full Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2013
Messages
7,449
I have been saying this from the day one but it’s the doing of EU leaders. Had they acted decisively with regards to arming Ukraine this energy crisis would have never happened. The indecisiveness in terms of major military support which would have ended this war by now have allowed Russia to blackmail the EU as it now plays a waiting game.
While I completely support Ukraine thunderfecking the Russians back to the motherland, I don't think helping them win the war quickly is going to help energy prices. It's not as if Russia will open the gas taps the day after the war ends.

There is a need for Western-allied countries to devolve from Russian energy, regardless of who wins the war. You cannot let one country (especially an unfriendly one) control your economy to this extent.