Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[HVC]

So a duplicitous,  but morally defensible means of hitting Europe.

[DGuller]

Okay, secondary tariffs are actually a serious threat, that's where Russia's testicles are.  Hopefully this would be the one tariff threat where the threat will be coupled with execution.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

So a duplicitous,  but morally defensible means of hitting Europe.

Europe should have divested already. It's like buying produce from Nazi germany in 1940 while they're marching through your country

[Valmy]

Where did they get their electricity during the Cold War? It seems weird they became so dependent on Russia in such a short period of time. Well a short period of time for the notorious slow moving energy sector anyway.

I guess they were all coal dependent back then and got hooked on the sweet elixir of natural gas.

[HVC]

The dozens of nuclear plants they shut down hasn't helped. I blame the simpsons and the greens.

[Sheilbh]

Where did they get their electricity during the Cold War? It seems weird they became so dependent on Russia in such a short period of time. Well a short period of time for the notorious slow moving energy sector anyway.

I guess they were all coal dependent back and and got hooked on the sweet elixir of natural gas.

Yeah coal was a bigger thing and worth saying a lot of this is not necessarily electricity but for industry. But also energy policy has always been very important - it is the core driver of British and French imperialism in the Middle East (especially over Suez and Persia) and, by contrast, the lack of oil and gas or imperial supply is a huge part of German policy.

It is a long-standing source of tension within the Western alliance. The West Germans wanted to supply the pipes for the Soviet "Friendship pipeline" into Eastern Europe (and, I think, still supplying Hungary and Slovakia). This was such a concern for Kennedy - and American power in Europe was so high in the early sixties - that the US could orchestrate a NATO ban on exports of pipe exports to the Soviet Union.

But by the seventies when the context was a far weaker, less prestigious America and a severe energy crisis (including for the US) and that West German deal was back on as part of Brandt's Ostpolitik. And this time the deal was pipes in exchange for gas which was now being piped into West Germany via East Germany. Supply kept on increasing all the way through the 70s and 80s despite the best efforts of numerous American Presidents, including Reagan, to persuade European states to stop importing Russian energy. I think by the end of the Cold War a third of West German energy was coming from the USSR. The East Europeans were made dependent by Russia, the West Germans chose to increase their dependency as a conscious policy (and reflecting Ostpolitik to some extent - but with realism), the French turned to nuclear, the Italians cut deals all over North Africa and the Gulf and the Brits were lucky enough to find domestic resources.

But I think it's a tension all through the post-war era that America can provide enough security for themselves and Europe - but the Americas (ie including, say, Venezuela during the Cold War) broadly couldn't provide enough energy for their own consumption and Europe's. As European imperialism in the Middle East declined and with it the ability to secure energy (through their own coercive power), I think that left basically two options (which are arguably still with us): either the Americans try to impose order in the Middle East which defends Israel and supplies Europe (and now China) with energy, or Europe cuts a deal with Russia.

So I don't think the issue has ever not been there (at least since the early 70s) but I think what has shifted is we've had a generation of leaders who seemed to think that the material basis of the economy and politics were separate spheres. All of the stuff around supply of energy would absolutely be understood - including the trade offs and the risks - by, say, Thatcher, Schmidt, Kohl, Mitterrand, Andreotti. I think the post-Cold War generation arguably perhaps forgot (or never realised) there were risks or trade-offs.

Edit: But FWIW I think that's why, until recently, any framing of Europe as strategically autonomous, or as another pillar has always included Russia: "from the Atlantic to the Urals". Without Russia it's difficult to see European strategic autonomy as there will still be a very significant energy dependency.

[Neil]

I wonder if funding priorities will change now?

Yeah, you'd hope that the US would realize that the MBT has gone the way of the battleship, and that drones (and shitloads of reserve drone pilots) are a better investment.

But I doubt it. It's still planning to build another six or so carriers.

The Navy is in some way worse off because their planning cycle is so much longer and thus will take decades to change. Unless an enemy accelerates the process by sinking our current fleet. The entire carrier battle group concept is horribly obsolete. Giant moving targets just waiting to be swarmed by drones. Carrier enthusiasts keep talking about how incredibly difficulty it is to sink a carrier, but while true it is also irrelevant. Even minor damage can force a ship having to go into drydock for repairs and due to the lack of capacity that would take the ship out of commission for years, essentially render them unavailable (while also delaying the building/refurbishing of the fleet). This is why the Navy often just scraps ships damaged in accidents since it would be too disruptive to the production schedule to interrupt new ship construction to facilitate repairs.

Wait, has the Navy been scrapping ships involved in accidents?  The USN actually has pretty robust repair capabilities. 

The problem with your thesis is that the entire US military is becoming more and more dependent on carrier battlegroups.  How is a country that is diplomatically isolating itself going to project power?

[Legbiter]

Donald Trump has privately encouraged Ukraine to step up deep strikes on Russian territory, even asking Volodymyr Zelenskyy whether he could strike Moscow if the US provided long-range weapons, according to people briefed on the discussions.

https://x.com/FT/status/1945047912288858134

From complaining about Zelensky not wearing a suit to Total Zetnik Death in...6 months? 

[Duque de Bragança]

Europe's trying to reduce its dependency particularly on the secondary market with oil - but about 20% of Europe's gas still comes from Russia and Europe is now the largest importer of oil from the countries where Russian oil is getting laundered. I believe that until last year a lot of that laundered oil was also being transported on European shipping but that's been clamped down on.

The European Commission has been pushing for an end of Russian gas and oil imports by the end of 2027, but that seems optimistic.

[Josquius]

Donald Trump has privately encouraged Ukraine to step up deep strikes on Russian territory, even asking Volodymyr Zelenskyy whether he could strike Moscow if the US provided long-range weapons, according to people briefed on the discussions.

https://x.com/FT/status/1945047912288858134

From complaining about Zelensky not wearing a suit to Total Zetnik Death in...6 months? 

I guess he's pissed Putin didn't agree to his very good (for Russia) offer.
He's now giving Putin one last chance to win his war in 50 days, which he isn't going to do, as the war will be slowing down afterwards anyway due to the weather- the perfect time for Putin to finally finish the war.
Promising all sorts to Ukraine helps to put extra pressure on this.

Of course it is Trump we are talking about here. Ascribing sensible motives to him is a bit silly. But I can see a possible logical spin.