[afiori]

This economic war is being fought differently from the two sides: Russia is trying to squeeze as much money as possible out of Europe for gas and oil, Europe is trying to starve Russia of every thing else.

Of course Gazprom is making record profit it is currently an unregulated adversarial monopoly. The sanction effect are thing like how the other week Russia was unable to operate some of its warship for lack of replacement parts.

[landemva]

> This economic war is being fought differently

Economic war? This is a new cold war with countries* being compelled to choose sides and split banking channels. The war material manufacturers are creating career paths for their grand children.

* Turkey is attempting to make money from everyone, while remaining in NATO.

[origin_path]

Gazprom does not have a monopoly on supplying gas, and the point of sanctions is not to make the sanctioned entity rich.

[syzar]

Which other Russian companies supply Russian gas to Europe in significant quantities? I thought Gazprom was pretty much the only company doing this but I have only a cursory knowledge of this matter.

The point of sanctions is a combination of two things. One is to punish a country and the other is to make a moral stance. If in the course of punishing the country a particular company makes more money that does not necessarily negate the efficacy of the sanctions or necessarily negate the morality of the sanctions.

[origin_path]

Europe doesn't only use Russian gas, large parts of it hardly rely on Russian gas at all. For example the UK only gets ~5% of gas from Russia. Europe is dotted with LNG import terminals that can import gas via ship from anywhere.

The reason there's a price spike across Europe is that Germany is suddenly trying to buy the supplies it needs from elsewhere, and gas is a (mostly) fungible commodity. So there's effectively less supply now in Europe, but with same or greater demand (to fill storage), which means the global LNG price goes up for everyone.

"The point of sanctions is a combination of two things. One is to punish a country and the other is to make a moral stance."

For as long as any country is willing to arbitrage gas it simply punishes the buyer, not the seller. From this whole thread it seems the basic economics of this seem to have got lost somewhere so let's do a worked example:

1. Russia sells $1000 worth of gas per day to Europe and $500 worth to China (or India, or wherever).

2. Europe says to Russia we don't want to buy your gas anymore. Russia is now $1000/day poorer, but has lots of spare gas. Now Europe needs to buy $1000 worth from somewhere else like China.

3. China looks at its natural reserves and thinks, well, we don't really have much more to sell from local production. But hey, we have pipelines and LNG terminals and gas is the same no matter where it comes from. Russia, would you be willing to sell us all your spare gas?

4. Russia says sure, that'll be $1000/day. China says OK, we'll take it.

5. Now China turns around to Europe and says sure, we can sell you gas. That'll be $1200/day. Europe is desperate for gas and so says yes; they don't have many other options because most sellers can't meet such a huge block of demand.

Result: Russia makes the same money as before and doesn't care, China takes a profit off the top, Europe ends up shooting itself in the foot. But at least its politicians can feel virtuous.

What's happening isn't as pure cut as that example. Obviously, Europe is trying to get gas from lots of alternative locations, only some is being arbitraged via third party countries. And in reality the arbitrageurs would pay less because there's greater supply, pushing down the price. But in any situation where you're trying to buy something that is a fungible commodity sanctions like that only make sense if there are no groups that break them. The moment someone does they make huge profits. So it doesn't make sense in an international market, it'd be like trying to sanction oil or grain. Someone will just buy it at the new lower price, relabel it and sell it back to you.

As for the moral stance argument, German politicians have no moral authority to bankrupt the poor throughout Europe or break down the electricity grid. They were not elected to do that, and it is deeply immoral to do that even if it worked which it does not. The working classes of Europe are not cannon fodder to freeze to death so Scholz can take a "moral stance".

[syzar]

So Gazprom is a monopoly within Russia. Germany is not solely the reason for the EU sanctions. Other countries were involved in the sanctions decision. The Baltics and Poland, etc. have been far more vocal about wanting sanctions.

The fact is Russia hasn’t been stably non expansionist for centuries and it is they who have been aggressors in Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus, and Georgia. At some point it’s a reasonable response by those threatened by Russia (the Baltics) to respond by demanding action by their allies. Russia alone is at fault and it alone deserves ire.

The moral imperative clearly lies with those desiring sanctions. Europe is going through the painful process to divest itself now of Russian resources. This will pay dividends in the future.

[afiori]

I don't believe that china pays as much as Europe for Russian Gas

[origin_path]

Probably not, the numbers chosen were arbitrary.

[afiori]

But it would change the equation a lot. Russia in very reliant on its fossil fuel exports both to finance its imports and its internal economy; the EU would like sanctions to affect both of those fields, but one is better than zero.