The 'good weather' may have some problematic knock-on effects some months down the road if it keeps up, even if the lower demand due to record winter warmth has reduced spot prices on the LNG market.
Warm weather trends could mean less snowpack across the region and potential drought conditions, which could impact everything from agricultural production to reduced summer hydroelectric production to problems with the cooling water supply for France's fleet of nuclear reactors:
> "So while the current mild weather is viewed by some as having prevented a deeper power crisis stemming from gas shortages, the low snow and rain totals this winter may themselves pose an even greater risk if the warm and dry conditions continue."
Notably, the trend of winters warming at a more rapid rate than summers in continental interiors is a long-standing prediction of climate models. Another feature is increased climatic instability associated with the gradually increasing water vapor content of the atmosphere (~7% increase per 1C temp rise), meaning long-term predictions are less reliable.
Another factor that might be influencing the current relatively low European gas price is the trend towards de-industrialization in Europe, which is not a good sign for long-term economic health:
> "Energy-intensive industries, such as aluminium, fertilisers, and chemicals are at risk of companies permanently shifting production to locations where cheap energy abounds, such as the United States. Even as an unusually warm October and projections of a mild winter helped drive prices lower, natural gas in the United States still costs about a fifth what companies pay in Europe."
There is long-term potential for renewable energy to replace most natural gas demand, and if 10X as much effort had gone into it over the past ten years, Europe might not be in this bind at all.
Energy policy has been the gravest mistake in recent European history and it wasn’t for lack of viable alternatives.
We Europeans like to make fun of Americans, but at least they managed to become energy independent in the same time span. All that we have in Europe is a shrinking industrial base and the largest war on European soil in 80 years (yet I’m sure we will still find a way to feel morally superior to the rest of the world somehow).
Luck is one component, but you are more lucky if you have more land. EU population density is 112 people per square kilometer, US has 36 per square kilometer. EU area is 4.2 million square kilometers, US has more than double of that, with a smaller population. Also, low population density helps with extraction. A lot of the USA is desert where nobody is living so only few people will complain about fracking messing up their life.
With the invention of fracking, the EU could have essentially unlimited natural gas for the next century, but they can’t because it was banned and due to the nature of property rights.
The fracking revolution could only have happened in the US due to how property rights are managed interestingly…
You are looking at this the wrong way. Europe's problem is not its dependence on Russian energy but but its inability to say no to America and Britain when that duo interfere in mainland security matters. Its mind boggling that a country of Germany's size and might can't tell America to fuck off "Ukraine is not going to be in your sphere of influence". The tapped phone call between American diplomats back in 2014 was supposed to expose the outsize American role in Ukraine right before Russia seized Crimea: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
We all know Russia WANTS a sphere of influence. But why should Russia have a sphere of influence? What is so special about Russia that you believe it deserves such a thing? Russia isn't even able to protect those currently in its sphere of influence (CSTO), as we can see in Armenia.
Nukes? The DPRK has nukes. Should the DPRK have a sphere of influence? Should India and Pakistan have their spheres of influence? Should everyone get nukes just to guarantee their own sovereignty?
Economy? Pre-war Russia was economically the size of Italy.
The ex-Warsaw Pact countries joined NATO of their own initiative precisely to be as far away from Russia as possible. Because being in the Russian sphere of influence means having your people sent to the gulag in Siberia.
If the war achieved anything for Russia, it's putting Russia firmly inside Chinas sphere of influence.
America has the exact same policy not only in the entire North and South America, but also in the Middle east and elsewhere. I agree that what Russia is doing is morally disastrous but rationally, they are doing exactly what the US and everyone else is doing.
The USA has everything it needs to back up that claim to being a superpower among which we can count:
- being a top tier tech power
- being a top tier culture exporter
- being the reserve currency for the world (the USA is THE monetary superpower)
- having good relationships with other major powers which amplify it's own
- having the best military force projection and having alliances which further magnify that force projection
Like it or not, the USA has what it takes to back it up. And I agree, the USA has been and is behaving morally disastrous in several ways. One does not excuse the other. No ones military imperialism is excusable.
But in addition to that, I am saying, the Russian leadership is braindead because they failed to accurately appraise their chances and continue to do so. They thought they could take Ukraine in a few weeks and when that proved wrong they did not recalibrate their expectations. At any time until the point they officially declared annexation, they could have declared mission accomplished and the internal propaganda machine would have done it's job. Now they are stuck, unable to make progress and unable to backtrack. Such stupidity is far more disastrous than the villainy of imperialism. This is Cipolla's 5'th law of stupidity and its corollary applied: "A stupid person is the most dangerous person in existence." and "A stupid person is thus more dangerous than a bandit.". Also, a relevant quote by the same author: "The ability to hurt of a stupid person depends on the […] position of power or authority he occupies in the society."
China, compared to Russia, does in fact have some actual capability to support its ambitions. Will they be stupid in the future and overestimate themselves? So far they are somewhat cautious but we will see.
'Sir, have you heard of the word hipocrisy? If you want your neighbourhood to keep their houses white, maybe you should not have painted your house red. You also refused any consequences of painting your house red, but now you demand it for your neighbour?'
Germany has been lacking a coherent security strategy. They neglected the Bundeswehr for decades and in recent years doubled down on their dependency on Russian fossil fuel (one could argue this was a mutual interdependency as German companies were crucial for the Russian arms industry).
Apart from the far right/left everyone in Germany (that I know) is thankful for America's support in Eastern Europe. Most of these people had no goodwill towards the US military before this war - mainly due to the shameful campaigns in Afghanistan/Iraq. But they also realized that the German/Western European security 'strategy' regarding Russia was a big failure.
If that is a thing that bothers you, one of the people that made sure that the Bundeswehr never recovers was that corrupt von der Leyen. She was MoD, funnelled a bunch of money to her McKinsey son, and then went on to become the head of European Commission. With someone like that at the helm of the EU, you don't need enemies.
The sibling comment mentions Germany's nuclear policy. It's worth noting that Germany at the EU tried to lobby against nuclear to deprive France out of EU support for Green energy. They have an irrational hate for nuclear energy, but it's not limited to nuclear energy. Somehow the once antiwar Green party has become the party of warmongering and coal lobbying.
Germany during the Kohl administration shut killed fibre optics infrastructure projects to fight the influence of public TV and promote cable TV. [1]
So this is at least 4 decades of ideological mismanagement. I'd say the respect for German infrastructure is the work that has been done after the war up until then.
Nothing is a big failure if the problem is too complex. With such probs, the only success is not getting pulled into a deep hole and wasting resources.
It's not a bad strategy cuz no one believes Ukraine can fight forever without someone else paying the bills. Let the US pay the bills till they can't.
The US is a dysfunctional society, and the strategies that come out of it, are what you expect out of a mental asylum. All this nonsense about sending weaponry over (which takes years of training to use effectively) is one example of the mindlessness.
Also good for Germany that Russia is going to be in such an economic mess after this, the energy from there is going to be very cheap.
That would make total sense had Germany not been making all of the wrong moves and relatively in bed with Russia the entire time, as opposed to the United States' support of Ukraine and anti-corruption movements there.
In your imagined scenario everything regarding Ukraine would be worse off, not better.
I would like to understand why Germany loves Russia so much, despite what's happened over the past year.
There was all kinds of funny business with Nordstream, Manuela Schleswig's fishy "foundation", and more. I can understand Schroeder - he's just getting paid by Putin every year. But Scholz? It seems that every month he makes up a different reason why Germany can't properly support Ukraine. A few helmets and kevlar vests and a handful of Gepards without ammunition, but Leopard 2s? God no, we couldn't possibly do that, it might hurt Putin's feelings! It seems he wants to give Ukraine just enough to watch them slowly bleed out.
Is it just that Putin is paying off most of the German politicians, and has been doing so for years? I guess they're pretty cheap to buy, and they're completely shameless about it - just look at Schroeder.
> A few helmets and kevlar vests and a handful of Gepards without ammunition, but Leopard 2s?
German military support is in the same order of magnitude as other countries. Including heavy weapons. Don't bother linking news articles or opinion pieces. Here's an up-to-date primary source: https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/data-sets/ukraine-suppo...
It's totally fair to argue that Germany should deliver more stuff or heavier weapons, but the helmets and vests and corruption rhetoric is unwarranted.
I agree with you, but part of the perception of Germany, including in GP comment, comes from Germany's hesitation to be as vocally supportive of Ukr, and from Germany's hesitation to take the risk on leading the way on supplying MBTs and other heavy weapons. For my entire life, Germany has acted like the leader of Europe, and now they have not either in words or deeds, which has colored the perception of ... not a few people. Germany has provided lots of aid, but they have been so damned shy about it, and never or at least rarely before other nations.
Given that Schroeder started working for Nord Stream within weeks of stepping down as Chancellor, later became manager of Nord Stream 2, was paid $350,000 per year as director of the board of Rosneft, and was nominated to the board of directors of Gazprom, is it really unwarranted to point out that he was bought and paid for as Putin's servant?
It's organic political opinion. For one thing, Germans feel very real guilt for their invasion of Russia in WW2, and they don't like the idea of aiding in a war against it. For another, the experience of the Cold War was much more traumatic for them than it was for the US, and they're not eager to start a new one.
This is absolutely true in my experience (live in Germany; have lots of friends and extended family here), and also mind-boggling. Germans also tend to be dismissive of Poland, Ukraine, and the Baltics, and sometimes even express disdain for at least one of those countries. Except that Germany didn't invade Russia in WW2; Germany invaded the USSR and Ukraine suffered at least as much in WW2 as Russia did. Some would argue more. It was the German-Soviet Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact¹ that allowed the Soviet occupation of the Baltics and Poland.
Yes, Germany really did the Soviets dirty² in the end, but German behavior was overall, in the opinion of many, worse for all the countries that the Germans allowed the Soviets to conquer than for the Russians directly. And yet, Germans truly seem to feel remorse only for Russians and not all FSU people. I don't exactly know why that is. My gut feeling is that Germans have more deeply ingrained respect, historically speaking, for the Russians than for Balts/Poles/Ukr/etc, so the feelings in general are deeper. Like I said at the beginning, Germans I know are really dismissive or worse of Poles/Balts/etc, though maybe not so much Ukrainians now, given current events.
Edit to add: I don't believe Germans "love russia so much", as suggested in the grandparent comment. Respect, yes, but not love, though I understand that is probably not meant literally anyway.
> I don't exactly know why that is. My gut feeling is that Germans have more deeply ingrained respect, historically speaking, for the Russians than for Balts/Poles/Ukr/etc, so the feelings in general are deeper.
Read this (amazing) dispatch from Berlin. Old school journalism with an attempt at analyzing the German psyche and (bonus) surprising information about the affinity felt for Russia by some Germans, including the Kaiser.
Hegel is one of the most abstruse of philosophers. He is quoted as saying, "One man has understood me and he has not." It is pretentious for someone not a philosophical scholar to discuss him. But what is important is the residue of his philosophy in the minds of the intelligentsia, who have passed it on in a sloganized form to the masses. The idea of the Volkstaat is certainly to be found in Hegel. He conceived the individual as finding himself only in the society of which he is an organic member; religion was not universal, but the spontaneous development of the national conscience; the artist was not an individual but a concentration of the passion and the power of the whole community. The deformation of these ideas is part of Naziism. The organic state is the Nazi ideal, in spite of the fact that Naziism destroyed what is organic. For one cannot create an organism by Gleichschaltung—switching into line—an idea not derived from biology but from mechanics.
Reading Hegel, and observing the relationship in Nazi Germany between state and Movement, one can see how easy would be a jump to the conception of the state as a proselytizing church, an idea which possessed Byzantium and the Eastern Church, and which is given expression in Dostoevski's novels. In "The Brothers Karamazov" he makes Father Paissy say: "The Church is not to be transformed into the State. That is Rome and its dream. On the contrary, the State transformed in the Church will ascend and become a church over the whole world—the glorious destiny ordained. . . . This star will rise in the East."
I quote Dostoevski here because the sympathy between the German idealistic philosophers and the great nineteenth century Russian novelists is constantly apparent. The Russian Communist state is certainly not the state dreamed of by Dostoevski who, at the end of his life at least, was deeply Christian; but it is a state that is, at the same time, a secular religion with a mission of world salvation. And so is the Nazi state. And with this it stops being a state in any Western sense of the word.
The attraction between Germany and Russia is enormous, and always has been. The Russian revolution was made in Germany—it grew out of German idealism via Marx—and Russia has contributed to it, and to the German mind as well, the spirit of Byzantium. That these two revolutions, the German and the Russian, would one day merge has been anticipated by many people. It is interesting that in 1931, two years before Hitler, the German Kaiser gave an interview at Doorn in which he expressed his scorn for any pan-Europeanism that would link Germany in an economic and spiritual alliance with Western Europe, above all with France and England. In fact, he made the statement, startling from a conservative at that time, that Germany's next of kin was Russia. "Western culture has reduced itself to mere utilitarianism, but the pendulum of civilization is switching to Eastern Europe and its way of life. We are not Westerners. . . . We cling with all our roots to the East."
The German belief that the West is decadent reached its clearest expression in Spengler. Utilitarianism is interpreted as a sure sign of decadence. Except in the East—to which Germany belongs—idealism is dead. The West has lost its biological vitality, its will to life and power. So run the arguments. The Nazis' revolt towards paganism as a spring from which Life can be renewed, and their systematic anti-intellectualism, are both reflections from Nietzsche, who denounced the concepts of "the good, the true, and the beautiful" as arresters of Life. Good, true, and beautiful, are only relative. They are the values of impotent, humble, feeble men with slave minds. The morality of bold, vigorous, healthy men is different. Their ethic is an ethic of strength, cruelty, combativeness, vigor and joy. Caution, humility, cleverness, pacifism, are only virtues for slaves, who can best advance themselves by the cultivation of these qualities. - Dorothy Thompson
(I posted this a few months ago expecting an interesting thread of discussion but it fell through the cracks.)
They do. They also understand that there collaborators were Ukrainian nationalists (who were extremely anti-semitic and enthusiastically participated in pogroms) who are increasingly venerated in Ukraine. As an American, I'm able to compartmentalize this, and rationalize that Ukrainians are venerating people like Bandera for their anti-Russian partisanship, not for their anti-Jewish politics. But this is less of an option for Germans, who for very understandable reasons have a greater sensitivity to anti-Semitism than most nations.
It's even more complicated that that. For example, whatever Bandera's personal ideology was, and despite his early attempts to collaborate with the Germans after they first occupied Ukraine, they quickly found the views and the goals that he was advocating dangerous enough to themselves to stick him into a concentration camp for the rest of the war.
I think everything I wrote is accurate. Bandera was a vicious anti-Semite. Bandera did collaborate with the Nazis. Bandera is venerated in Ukraine (since 2014 and especially since 2022). Maidan was made possible by armed support from neo-nazi political parties. Based on my reading, I do not think that Ukraine is a particularly anti-Semitic place, and I think that they like Bandera mainly because they see him as an anti-Russian fighter. But it's easy for me to understand why Germans are much more uncomfortable with the symbolism that I am.
Oh I wasn't saying Bandera wasn't an Anti-semite, I have no idea. Just the idea that Ukraine is an anti-semite society, that's completely nuts. I've visited and have Ukrainian friends - they do have a big problem with racism, but not to some crazy level vs in that region. I've heard of things happening in Poland that well, are not very progressive - ie public buses not stopping for black people, racial beatings, taunting on the streets.
Ukraine just had a bigger issue I believe because of the participation of certain groups (Azov) in the Maidan revolution and then in the 2014+ war. My impression is this happened quite simply because every sector of society was at Maidan, but the Azov guys were more willing to get their hands dirty/get violent, thus they became prominent. That's my impression.
Aiding a war ‘against it’?? These people are just dumb about this conflict. How about we all leave the borders as they are and do something more valuable for mankind. The only people who want war are the ones blinded by power
IMHO, Ukrainians should grab Königsberg for themselves after the end of war and then exchange it for something useful, e.g. exchange it for Transnistria with Moldova, instead of returning Königsberg to Germany.
Russian 14th army may strike from the back to support the main army, so they should be made toothless before the second wave of invasion, but Ukraine cannot attack 14th army without breaking relationships with Moldova, EU, UN, and NATO. However, Ukraine can exchange this problem (Transnistria) for another problem (Königsberg) to negate them both.
The best thing Europe could do to Kaliningrad is encourage a separatist movement there. There's not much Russia could do about it if they had a consensus to separate, and being an exclave of a pariah country in the middle of foreign hostile territory is not exactly conductive to day-to-day living. If there was a clear (if unspoken) understanding that such an entity, once it clearly breaks up with Russia, would be admitted to EU under the usual rules, I think it could be sold.
And then? You have a piece of territory that is ethnically and culturally Russian, but integrated into Europe instead of that whole "Russian World" nonsense. That can be used as an agitprop showcase to contrast with Russia proper, especially as things get worse there as economy starts feeling more long-term effects from sanctions.
Königsberg was part of Germany when annexed by Soviet Union. I see no page about Königsberg in Czech language at Wikipedia at all. Anyway, Germans were expelled, so Königsberg is populated by Russians now, which makes it similar to Transnistria, Crimea, etc.
> Warm weather trends could mean less snowpack across the region and potential drought conditions, which could impact everything from agricultural production to reduced summer hydroelectric production to problems with the cooling water supply for France's fleet of nuclear reactors.
The problem for agriculture there is not only water, it also needs cold periods for better harvests and fruit production.
Warm weather trends could mean less snowpack across the region and potential drought conditions, which could impact everything from agricultural production to reduced summer hydroelectric production to problems with the cooling water supply for France's fleet of nuclear reactors:
> "So while the current mild weather is viewed by some as having prevented a deeper power crisis stemming from gas shortages, the low snow and rain totals this winter may themselves pose an even greater risk if the warm and dry conditions continue."
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/europes-mild-wea...
Notably, the trend of winters warming at a more rapid rate than summers in continental interiors is a long-standing prediction of climate models. Another feature is increased climatic instability associated with the gradually increasing water vapor content of the atmosphere (~7% increase per 1C temp rise), meaning long-term predictions are less reliable.
Another factor that might be influencing the current relatively low European gas price is the trend towards de-industrialization in Europe, which is not a good sign for long-term economic health:
> "Energy-intensive industries, such as aluminium, fertilisers, and chemicals are at risk of companies permanently shifting production to locations where cheap energy abounds, such as the United States. Even as an unusually warm October and projections of a mild winter helped drive prices lower, natural gas in the United States still costs about a fifth what companies pay in Europe."
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/energy-crisis-chips-...
There is long-term potential for renewable energy to replace most natural gas demand, and if 10X as much effort had gone into it over the past ten years, Europe might not be in this bind at all.