If everyone is so united in opposition why are they still buying the oil and gas (paying in Rubles)? If they're so together why did Turkey block Sweden and Finland joining Nato. If the unifying petrodollar still binds us all why is Saudi considering Yuan. If they had any sort of plan that would save Ukrainians why is it taking months to enact?
If everyone is so united in opposition why are they still buying the oil and gas (paying in Rubles)?
Because we are dependent on it and despite opposition to Russia's war, our solidarity has limits. Limits which are a subject to internal debate and strive. Obviously you know this, which explains the other posters incredulity at the question, which is bound to be in bad faith.
If they're so together why did Turkey block Sweden and Finland joining Nato.
Probably because they see a way to get something they want. Probably not as a gesture towards Russia, since their own contribution to the war -- e.g. closing off the Black sea has been pretty effective.
Ok? That's not a word? I'm not saying the current politics are good, but that's what they are. You don't debate them by feigning ignorance like Guthur did. Pithy neologisms don't add much, either.
>If everyone is so united in opposition why are they still buying the oil and gas (paying in Rubles)?
Are you asking this in good faith, as in, you do not know, and wish to learn?
Or did you mean to say, "I think that a majority of countries are not united in opposition to russia, and I submit as evidence that russian energy sales are not zero" ?
Ah no. Maybe I'm just stupid, so please explain to me how all the European countries that are so united in solidatary with Ukraine can square the round hole of also paying Russia vast sums of money for energy?
explain to you because you do not know, and wish to learn, and thus you are asking in good faith?
or "explain", as in you think the majority of countries are not united in opposition to russia, and you would like to advance this claim?
I want to be clear here, I am all for sharing knowledge, so if you need an explanation because you don't know, and don't just plan to argue, please say so and I will share all I can, what little it may be
So you have no interest in explaining to me how EU countries (Germany etc) paying Russia for energy helps Ukraine? I'm quite serious, I don't know how paying Russia helps Ukraine, or are they not paying for energy? maybe I am ill informed.
And please don't come back with misdirection, either answer the question or lets leave it like that because it's a waste of both our time.
Not the person you were originally responding to, but I would point out that originally the statement was about if everyone is united in opposition, why are we still buying fossil fuel from Russia.
This is not the same question as how it helps Ukraine, so I would be careful throwing around the word “misdirection”.
The original responder asked twice in a row whether or not i wanted an answer when there was obviously nothing rhetorical about my questions and so that is the misdirection.
And we are now how deep in this thread without an answer to the simple question; how can a lack of EU energy embargo stand in solidarity with the sanctions and Ukraine. Please explain?
I think the original responder's concern, which I share, is that your question is really an opinion, rather than a genuine question, and that they (or I) would spend time writing a long, detailed response to what is a very complicated topic, only to be wasting our time because it would fall on the ears of someone who is not interested in listening (or reading).
I'll go for it though, and address the original question, which was 'If everyone is so united in opposition why are they still buying the oil and gas (paying in Rubles)?', although you've rephrased it as 'please explain to me how all the European countries that are so united in solidatary with Ukraine can square the round hole of also paying Russia vast sums of money for energy?', and somewhat differently asked 'I don't know how paying Russia helps Ukraine, or are they not paying for energy?'
First off, I don't think anyone would argue that this in any way helps Ukraine. Of course, paying money to Russia is not going to help Ukraine. However, Europe has been dependent on Russian oil and gas for a long time, and it is not simple to just cut that off. 40% of gas supplied to the EU comes from Russia, and almost 30% of the EU's oil.
Second, I don't think anyone anticipated that this war would last longer than a month or two. I think the expectation from the EU's side was an overwhelming show of force from Russia, regime change in Ukraine, and a quick end to hostilities. Although the EU started discussing longer term moves away from Russian gas and oil at that point, I don't think there was a sense that this could have any short term impact in terms of supporting Ukraine (or cutting off indirect support for Russia). The EU, known for being slow to react and full of bureaucracy, was able to publish a plan on 8th March, less than two weeks after the invasion. The plan is very aggressive, and targets reducing imports from Russia by two-thirds within one year. This is a major economic blow to Russia, and likely was intended to scare Russia into changing their approach in Ukraine, unsuccessfully.
Third, just stopping paying for this fuel would likely be in breach of commercial agreements. Russia and Ukraine have been at war since 2014, and the EU has not stopped paying for gas. There are legal implications to not upholding your side of a contract, although I doubt that this is a serious consideration - likely this could be thrashed out quickly.
Fourth, if we stop paying, Russia would then cease supplying oil and gas to the EU. There are a number of reasons this would be problematic. First of all, the distribution systems we currently have need to be pressurised (this is not technically quite accurate, but it's a close enough analogy I don't think it's important to get into the details). If Russia stopped supplying gas and oil to the EU, there is an overhead for the EU to keep these pipelines pressurised to avoid the whole system collapsing. So additionally to losing 20-30% of Europe's fuel supply, Europe would additionally need to divert supplies to the network rather than it being available for use by users. I wasn't able to find details on the amount of technical gas consumed by the EU and what the gap would be, but during the previous fuel crisis, the gap for gas alone was 21 million cubic metres per day, which represents 2% of the EU's total daily consumption.
Fifth, the EU is struggling with economic challenges same as the rest of the world. We have high inflation, Cost of Living is going up faster than salaries. Reducing energy supply would necessitate massive price increases on fuel bills, which is currently being seen in the UK and very poorly received. As this war seems to be settling in to become a long, drawn out conflict.
Finally (at least for this comment), from a military strategy point of view, cutting off this income now would give Russia the opportunity to develop other income streams while operating on their reserves. Waiting until Russia is deep in an economic crisis, and has burned through their war chest before cutting off their cashflow is likely to lead to more acute hardship and be a stronger bargaining chip. I'm sure Russia are currently considering this as well, but there will be a 'sweet spot', before Russia are able to develop other income streams.
sure, I have interest, IF you are able to say you are asking because you don't know and want to learn, not because you want to argue
this is not misdirection, it's giving you the opportunity to show your questions are being asked _in_good_faith_, because I don't see a point to answering a bad faith question
you've had two opportunities to do so, and both times chosen not to simply say that your objective is learning, rather than arguing. instead, you extremely conspicuously chose to deflect from such a clarification
in my experience, when someone is hiding and actively avoiding clarifying their objective in a discussion, it is because their objective in the discussion is not clarity.
tl;dr: you say you want an answer to your question, but if you think you already know the answer, then your question doesn't need another one,
and if you DON'T think you already know, it should be easy for you to just say that, and that you don't intend to argue with whoever would teach you the answer
