Europe has some gas reserves. We could "see out winter if Russian imports stop" [0]. I personally don't mind wearing an extra sweater or jacket inside if it stops Europe from paying billions to Gazprom.
> While a complete loss of Russian gas imports, currently making up almost half of Germany’s gas needs, “will lead to bottlenecks in some European countries”, supply shortages “would be limited to up to 10% of demand”.
You don't mind wearing a sweater but I'm willing to bet you're not elderly, nor poor, nor living in substandard housing. Any of those would make your sacrifice simply one more example of an action that hurts the most vulnerable in society while claiming to be a good thing.
I'm sorry to have triggered you. I didn't mean to sound like that was a sacrifice.
Elderly and poor will be hurt the most, that is true. If the source I linked to is correct, it claims it would only impact 10% of demand. While I don't know what that would look like in practice. I sincerely hope (and expect) that it would not lead to anyone, including the vulnerable, freezing to death, or getting seriously ill.
If you want to talk about people being triggered then I may as well talk about virtue signalling but it won't lead to an interesting discussion.
People in privileged positions often talk about making small sacrifices to fulfil some grand end. It always impacts the least privileged the most, whether that be through poverty or something like old age. We've just had 2 years of it with the pandemic, and now we're seeing it with war, and you've extended it to the boycott of a company providing a very necessary resource.
> it would only impact 10% of demand
What would it do to prices? My advice to you is to try imagining what it's like to run out of money before the end of the month and have to freeze your way to the next, then as an elderly person. The path to hell is paved with good intentions.
Not really. Europe would experience a temporary shortage and soaring prices but that's it. The alternative is to let dictator Putin go unpunished, which means he will in the future likely attack another country. There is no doubt about it. Without a strong deterrent and corresponding internal opposition, dictator Putin would seize the first opportunity as long as (in his mind) he'd be reasonably certain that other European states wouldn't use nuclear weapons anyway. The older he gets, the more likely he is to make such errors of judgment. The new security imbalance due to an emboldened Russia would drastically increase the likelihood of a nuclear war in the future.
Avoiding WW3 should have higher priority than short-term gas imports.
Not at that time of the year, we won't. There are reserves still.
If we don't stop this madness now, we may freeze in 1-5 years running away from war moving through Latvia, Estonia, Poland etc.
But Germany thinks it will save its economy still buying gas from RUS, so there's that...
Electric heating, oil heating and so on. Not sure if the grid would cope with such a load, but there are always options.
Another option is just to give up with your kind of argument, and pay up Russia. That's looking increasingly like shooting our own foot in long term. The idea he will stop and be happy just with Ukraine is dangerously naive and ignore his own steps and statements.
If this won't be a wake up call in Europe then nothing will. Ramp up military budgets (I hate the idea, but that's how you deter bullies and we have one greedy fucker right now next door), and prepare infrastructure for withdrawal of anything russian. Long term that's good for Europe and world too.
A lot of people in Europe and the UK are already struggling to pay bills. It's been described as "eat or heat", since some can't afford to do both. Rising cost of living, reduced job security, and lower wages are all killing tens-of-thousands of people already.
You're treating an aggressive war in Europe like a minor calamity. It is an obvious responsibility of the state to help people pay for substitute heating and ease the negative impact of conflicts like that. In the worst case, even the military could step in. Helping citizens in times of conflict is one of the primary functions of governments and state institutions. It's much better to face these kind of negative consequences now than to embolden a dictator and later wonder why you sit in a bunker while Latvia or Poland is overrun. Just because this is not an armed conflict (yet) does not mean it should be treated lightly.
> You're treating an aggressive war in Europe like a minor calamity
I have absolutely no idea why you say this, and I can assure you that I am not doing this.
Fuel poverty in Europe and the UK are among many reasons why those nations should take what's happening in the Ukraine very seriously. My concern is that the ruling parties don't take these things seriously enough.
To reassure you: I completely agree that states should look after their citizens who cannot eat or keep themselves warm. Unfortunately, this demonstrably does not happen.
The situation in Ukraine is dreadful, and I certainly do not think it is minor. Quite the opposite.
And also next winter. We absolutely have the means to get rid of our dependence on Russian fossil fuels (and fossil fuels in general). But we won't be able to do it within one year.
