[LatteLazy]

Which strategy? The Russian refusal to sell or the European reliance? A big part of European reliance dates back to Obama refusing to sell LNG from fracking.

Again, countries have a right to (not) sell their gas as they see fit. I'm just saying this is all pretty muddy. It's more complex than good guy vs bad guy.

[emteycz]

The European reliance of course. Expecting a KGB agent turned warlord to sell key resource for a good price forever without any strings attached is just crazy.

If there's no good [local] source of gas, using gas is not a good idea.

[rad_gruchalski]

> The European reliance of course. Expecting a KGB agent turned warlord to sell key resource for a good price forever without any strings attached is just crazy.

The moment when Europe got screwed was Russia and China signing the $400B contract in 2014. Until then Russia needed Europe and Europe needed Russia.

Europe alienating Russia and China at the same time is Europe in trouble.

[88840-8855]

I think US foreign policy has created all of these problems for the EU. There would never have been an expansion in the direction of Crimea without four waves of NATO expansions in the direction of Russia, while after the collapse of the Soviet Union it was promised that NATO would never expand in the direction of Russia.

Without the invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban crossing the border to China and the massive radicalization in Xinjiang in the early 2000s, there would have been no camps in Xinjiang. Please do not forget that the terrorist militia "East Turkestan independence movement" founded in Xinjiang was led as a terrorist organization by the EU, the USA, Russia and of course China after it was founded. Also do not forget that tens of thousands of these Uyghurs, radicalized by the Afghan Taliban, joined the Islamic State and fought in Iraq and Syria against the US - always openly with the aim of bringing jihad to China. China reacts the way China reacts, but it is wrong and naive to discuss the issue without discussing the trigger.

Thanks to the US, we now have enemies instead of friends. And I ask you - is it easier to fight our common enemy, global warming, with friends or with enemies?

[LatteLazy]

That's great, but it worked fine for decades including under actual communists. And the EU has few other options. And their allies refuse to help. And it's those same allies that have upset Putin.

So maybe not entirely their fault even if it is their problem (I'm a Brit for full disclosure)

[emteycz]

That it worked fine for decades is no excuse. Europe should have been building nuclear reactors all day and night long instead of waiting until it inevitably stopped working - and/or allies stop helping. Maybe it's not as economical as renewables but at least it's actually capable to replace the gas.

[LatteLazy]

So Europe should have spent trillions building a massive nuclear capacity and switching to all electric just because? Presumably every other country or trade block that imports energy needs to do the same? Seems a bit extreme no?

[emteycz]

Not "just because" but "because relying on unstable allies and warlords is not good for the citizens in the long term".

Other powers seem to have other local options, so they don't need to build nuclear as much as Europe does.

[LatteLazy]

But that's the situation everyone is in isn't it? If the Saudis and Iran stop pumping oil then all developed economies will be in the shit. But I don't see any nation radically building vast nuclear facilities... The same goes for China and cheap consumer goods or Taiwan and semiconductors.

The only place that's even close to independent is North Korea...