[Cthulhu_]

They stopped on January 1st 2025 when the contract with Gazprom signed in 2019 expired, costing Gazprom / Russia an estimated $5bn / year: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/01/business/ukraine-russia-g...

It's a complicated one, but legally it's a civil contract; if the Ukrainian government decided to stop the gas flowing, both Gazprom and all the companies "downstream" would be in their rights to sue for breach of contract and/or causing gas shortages, costing the Ukrainian government billions.

And you could wonder why they signed the contract anyway given Russia invaded/annexed Crimea 5 years prior, but, it's a lot of money, and at the time it was still considered a civil contract I presume.

[blackhaz]

I am completely naive,l as I don't understand much in contracts, but wouldn't war effectively nullify those contracts? I mean, if a large proportion of your adversary's economy hangs by a simple piece of paper, I'd expect one to suggest them to go and wipe themselves with it.

[roenxi]

It doesn't take a war to do that, in peacetime governments can also manufacture reasons to just not do things - up to and including just changing the law. The main defence against that is that if they are going to do that later on they simply won't sign up for the deal, so we'd expect a government to honour anything they sign on with.

I'd imagine the logic goes something like Ukraine believes they are benefiting and Russia is too, but they aren't sure which side is gaining more from the movement of gas through Ukraine (which, note, in real terms is supporting the economies that are arming Ukraine). In that situation, the obvious thing to do is just let things play out as contracted. If it was obvious that Russia was gaining a lot more from the deal than they are then they'd just stop.

[awesome_dude]

I'm speculating.. but...

The Ukraine needed (and continues to need) support from the buyers of that gas - the EU

The war has been going long enough, and the Ukrainian government would have made it very clear that thy would not be renewing the contract.. meaning that the EU had a chance to get their energy via some other route.

[jcattle]

Sure. War also makes Nordstream II a legitimate military target. You still have to weigh if it is worth it to risk your good relations with your allies over sabotaging infrastructure which is important for their national security.

[cdogl]

I don’t think you are naive - it’s counter-intuitive. The political context is important: Ukraine is incentivised to portraying itself as a country that respects international law and norms. The fact of life is that this includes respecting civil contracts made in good faith. This moral high ground has a cost.

[eru]

> This moral high ground has a cost.

Btw, occupying the moral high ground even when it has a cost, sends a strong signal that you will also be trustworthy in the future, and not just when it's convenient.

Ie sometimes the cost is the point.

Just like the peacock's fancy tail needs to be biologically expensive to work.

[XorNot]

Also because the gas itself went to customers outside Ukraine.

Ultimately the general public is capricious in its beliefs: cutting the gas off and causing energy prices to spike in Europe means someone will call for the head of whoever's nearest to blame.

Ukraine also was deliberately not targeting Russian oil assets earlier at the request of the US for economic reasons - though I'd say recent American political history shows what a mistake that is.

[awesome_dude]

> Ukraine also was deliberately not targeting Russian oil assets earlier at the request of the US for economic reasons - though I'd say recent American political history shows what a mistake that is.

There's been a change in the administration (and therefore strategy) of the USA, which changed the way the game was being played.

I think that (almost) everyone that has actual skin in that particular game also knows that none of the agreements that any of them make are reliable for a long term (I saw recently that the Ukranians gave up the Nukes they had at the behest of the US government, and on the.. I don't know if it was explicit, implicit, or just assumed.. understanding that the USA would provide some sort of security guarantee (which, of course, has never materialised)

[pydry]

Ukraine gave up its nukes in the same sense that Germany would "give up its [American] nukes" if it exited NATO.

They also had about as much latitude to keep those nukes as Germany would. Some people act like Ukraine owned and controlled the nukes and had a meaningful choice. They never did.

It wasnt given security guarantees either, it was given a promise that its independence wouldnt be infringed upon in a memorandum (not in a treaty).

As the Americans stated themselves in 2013 when they violated their promises within the Budapest memorandum, that memorandum wasnt legally binding. It was treated like toilet paper first by the Americans in 2014 and subsequently the Russians in 2014.

[no_wizard]

The US did not violate the Budapest memorandum[0]. That’s a false narrative from Russia and violated it when invading and occupying Crimea.

[0]: https://cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/news/budapest-memorandum-myth...

[pydry]

Your citation isn't. It doesn't contradict anything I've said. It doesn't back up what you said. In fact, it agreed with me on one key point which you just trashed as Russian propaganda:

>Absent the 1994 agreements, many seem to believe Ukraine could have maintained a nuclear arsenal. In fact, it would have encountered likely insurmountable challenges.

Here is where the Americans said "look, this memorandum isn't even legally binding" while they also try to pretend they didn't violate it:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140419030507/http://minsk.usem...

[usrusr]

They were Soviet nukes, not Russian. No different from the tanks and uniforms Ukraine inherited from the Soviet Union. Very different from the borrowed US and Soviet nukes both Germanies had in their inventories.

[pydry]

Ukraine didnt inherit the soviet nukes, the Soviet debts or the soviet seat on the UN security council either.

[XorNot]

Fair doesn't exist in international politics, and it's extremely obvious that handing back the Soviet nukes they had possession of was a mistake.

Whereas try collecting a debt from a nuclear power who's uninterested in paying it.

[awesome_dude]

When you edit your response, can you do so by clearly labeling your changes.

[awesome_dude]

Just FTR, I never said "its nukes" I said the "nukes that they had"

[eru]

> Ukraine also was deliberately not targeting Russian oil assets earlier at the request of the US for economic reasons [...].

I find this fascinating: the US is a net oil exporter so 'as a country' would benefit from higher oil prices.

But it seems in the US your average Joe who tops up his car at the petrol station has more political power than the oil industry.

[orangecat]

But it seems in the US your average Joe who tops up his car at the petrol station has more political power than the oil industry.

Pretty much. A common absurdity is politicians railing against Big Oil for causing climate change while simultaneously promising to lower gas prices.

[eru]

> A common absurdity is politicians railing against Big Oil for causing climate change while simultaneously promising to lower gas prices.

Or putting / upholding tariffs on imports of solar panels.