ᐅ Gas Prices – Where Is Gas Still Affordable?

Neubau2022 schrieb:

And what exactly is wrong with that? Even the CDU supported ending the "private project" after Russia attacked Ukraine.

I find it confusing why "even" Ukraine is allowed to do business with Russia, but we are not.

KingJulien schrieb:

No, I think that was actually the attack in Europe that was denied until the very end (military exercise, yeah right). So much for credibility.

I would like to know what the Russian and American intelligence services know or knew that we have not been informed about. My impression from the beginning has been that something is happening or has happened behind the scenes that we are unaware of, which, in my view, is important for assessing the situation. It may well be that Russia is simply the aggressor; however, from my perspective, it is not excluded that other "warmongers" are involved or have pushed the situation forward. I fundamentally lack belief that we/the West are the "good guys," as the list of wars of aggression or wars/war involvements led or provoked by "us" is too long... Although I am generally a rather naive person, I become suspicious when the side of the "good guys" benefits so clearly. Then the world should be a better place if the "good guys" benefit—that is, the countries that (coincidentally?) make a lot of money from this or other wars... and have done so for a long time.

Pinkiponk schrieb:

I would like to know what the Russian and American intelligence services know or knew that we are not informed about. My impression has been from the beginning that something is or was happening behind the scenes that we are unaware of, which, in my view, would be important for assessing the situation. It might indeed be as simple as Russia being the aggressor; however, from my perspective, it cannot be ruled out that other "warmongers" are involved or have escalated the situation. I fundamentally lack the belief that we/the West are the "good guys," as the list of offensive wars or provoked wars/war participations led by "us" is too long... Even though I am rather naive, I become suspicious when the "good side" clearly benefits. Then the world should be a better place if the "good guys" benefit—meaning the countries that (coincidentally?) make a lot of money from this or other war(s)—and that has been going on for a long time.

“Good“?
That has never really been a category in world politics; it is a marketing concept for international relations.

1) There are states in the world that, broadly speaking, want to adhere to a rules-based international order, where the rules are negotiated internationally under the leadership of the USA.

2) Then there are states that primarily seek to enforce their own interests through power and see war as a means to achieve this.

The USA itself advocates for a world as described in 1), but is also repeatedly willing to act as in 2) when its own interests are severely affected. This naturally weakens the legal positions of the community committed to the rules-based world order.

Ukraine wanted/wants to belong to the states described in 1), while its neighbor Russia is a state from 2). Since at least 2014, there has been war, as separatists violently, including by armed force, have wanted to break off eastern Ukraine and join Russia. Ukraine responded with force as well to defeat the separatists.

Now there are countless stories about who did what, when, why, and to achieve what exactly. Each side portrays itself as “the good guys” in the stories they tell. It is all marketing.

The fact is, in January before the current major conflict began, Russian troops were mobilized, which was reported by US intelligence and therefore also known to European governments.

Then Russia invaded Ukraine. Putin referred to Article 51 of the UN Charter and thus presented it as a "special operation" to protect/save the Russian-speaking separatists. The credibility of this claim is now clear.
Ultimately, the invasion was a violation of all the rules mentioned in 1), including those Russia had once promised to uphold. The world does not accept the argument based on Article 51.
Russia is conducting geopolitics according to 2), simply because it can. References pointing out that the USA does the same can be, depending on perspective, either whataboutism or justified. The fact remains that Russia, as the aggressor, attacked another state in Europe, and it must be determined if and how to respond. This is exactly what is happening, of course again filled with many interests.

Pinkiponk schrieb:

I’m confused about why the Ukraine is even allowed to do business with Russia, but we are not.

It’s quite simple. The money Ukraine pays may be invested in weapons that harm them. As far as I know, the money Germany gives to Russia is not used to fund weapons deployed in Germany.

chand1986 schrieb:

Ukraine wanted/wants to be among the countries in group 1), while neighboring Russia is a country from group 2). Since at least 2014, there has been a conflict because separatists are using violence, including armed force, to separate Eastern Ukraine and join Russia. Ukraine itself responded with force to defeat the separatists.

Thank you for replying to @Pinkiponk. I believe this point is especially important because it serves as ammunition in propaganda on both sides. Since 2014, there has been "of course" significant support from the USA to Ukraine due to their geostrategic considerations. This included weapons as well as extensive training and education. Unfortunately, extremist groups, such as the Azov Regiment, also benefited from this, similar to how in Syria various parties armed people with questionable intrinsic motivation to fight.

Despite these legitimate criticisms, Russia has been the consistent aggressor in the region since 2014, not the West. Citing any promises regarding NATO eastward expansion while simultaneously invading several countries directly or indirectly is blatant hypocrisy. The "whataboutism" argument of "but the USA" is no justification. If my neighbor commits armed robbery and murder, that is no justification for me to do the same. Period.

Furthermore, it seems that the US leadership believed their intelligence reports — the Eurozone had the same information but ignored it due to political ties with Schröder. Looking back, I feel ashamed of Maas’s laughter during Trump’s UN speech. Gas as a pressure tool was clearly identified and ignored by us. It should be widely known by now that Nord Stream 2 is completely irrelevant for European gas supply. There is enough pipeline gas for everyone — with Nord Stream 2, Putin could only have beautifully divided Europe.

Of course, the USA also wants to sell LNG, and its price, at 6-9 cents (from memory), is higher than Russian gas, but our economic dependence on Russia is alarming. Every industrial company should have risk management in place, where active countermeasures are taken if there is 100% dependence on suppliers. It’s obvious that this is not done without good reason. I cannot comprehend how this was completely ignored on a national economic level for decades. No, 2nd source activities, like LNG terminals, were consistently prevented.

chand1986 schrieb:

"Good"?
That has never really been a category in global politics; it’s more of a marketing concept for world politics.

1) There are countries in the world that, broadly speaking, want to adhere to a rules-based world order, where the rules are negotiated internationally under the leadership of the USA.

2) Then there are countries that primarily pursue their own interests through their own power and see war as a means to enforce those interests.

The USA itself advocates for a world like in 1), but is also repeatedly willing to act as in 2) when its own interests are too strongly affected. This naturally undermines the legal principles upheld by the community committed to the rules-based world order.

Ukraine wanted/wants to be among the countries described in 1), while its neighbor Russia is a country as described in 2). Since at least 2014, there has already been conflict, as separatists have used force, including armed force, to try to split off eastern Ukraine and bring it under Russia. Ukraine responded with force to defeat the separatists.

Now there are countless stories about who did what, when, how, and why, aiming to achieve specific goals. Each side portrays itself as "the good guys" in the narratives it tells. It’s marketing after all.

The fact is that in January, before the current large-scale conflict began, Russian troops were mobilized, which was reported by US intelligence and thus also known to European governments.

Then Russia invaded Ukraine, with Putin referencing Article 51 of the UN Charter to present it as a "special operation" intended to protect/save Russian-speaking separatists. We can now see how credible that claim is.
Ultimately, the invasion was a violation of every rule under point 1), including those Russia once pledged to follow. The world does not recognize the argument based on Article 51.
Russia is conducting geopolitics as in 2) simply because it can. References to the USA acting the same way are, depending on perspective, either whataboutism or justified criticism. The fact remains that Russia, as an aggressor, attacked another state in Europe, and it is necessary to consider if and how to respond. That is exactly what is happening, of course once again driven by many different interests.

A very accurate summary, thank you.

Additionally, I would like to add that the one fighting to maintain their dominance exempted themselves at will from sanctions and their enforcement—meaning they continue to conduct active trade—while we have to suffer from devastating sanctions. Some cynical voices claim this way you can kill two birds with one stone ;-)