[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.