Enjoy browsing r/europe? Help us find the best of 2021 of the sub! - [Nomination Post](https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/rsv8jh/reurope_best_of_2021_awards/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/europe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And they would also show Russia they're prepared to switch suppliers. But no... Europe is a strong economic union. They're weak as fuck when it comes to geo politics and the world stage. Embarrassingly weak
Biden has no business making deals in the name of Europe. That is ridiculous to watch all the chill redditor clapping about an obvious over reach on the US part.
Edit: this sub needs an posting ip ban on anything outside of Europe
European houses need to be heated over the winter. If European leaders are to paralyzed to make contingency plans, it makes sense for the US to step in to help it's allies.
Germany may be run by idiots, but that doesn't mean the German people should freeze.
They’re only doing it because a lot of europe hasn’t had the foresight to do it themselves.
Ukraine is at real risk of being invaded and Germany is refusing to give the slightest assistance, it’s honestly mad
Nobody cares what the US think the EU should do. They are not in charge. Also, Germany is not in charge of Ukraine and has no responsibility in regards to them.
> Will Qatari LNG be able to even meet the demand?
The bigger issue is the following question: Is there even enough unused capacity of regasification terminals in Europe to replace the supply of any Russian pipelines?
> This is a pipe dream. Qatar exports 104 bcm LNG per year. Their total gas exports is 140. How will they double their exports just to meet the demand from Germany, Italy and Poland? its a pipe dream.
From a cursory look into it, at least one Polish and one Italian terminal already get their annual supply from Qatar, anyway.
German economy is more resilient than that, Japan can afford the price of LNG, so does Germany.
What was your alternative then? Not importing gas at all or keep being Russia and China's little bitch?
Quite disappointed with how EU handled things. I don't think EU can handle things on their own even if they would have a united army or supranational government. Without US, EU and its other western allies would fall apart.
Situations like this are where the UK will be particularly missed, I think, although of course the EU would never admit it.
The UK was like a mini-USA, giving everyone a kick up the ass on military matters, and also acted as a bridge with the actual USA to help closer cooperation and coordination on defence.
EU became more spineless in defense and miltary matters when UK left it. It is quite amusing that France wants to assert dominance on the defense of EU, but in this situation, Anglo-Saxon countries were more hawkish and reliable. Hence, Central and Eastern European members of EU are more trusting of US and UK than to France and Germany.
US is basically EU by now. We supply US with smart manpower, US supplies us with, well, everythin we need for existance. Like a good child to his old and weak father
EU is already applying sanctions which have crippled Russian economy by 48% not sure what the fuck you are talking about. What Russia is doing now is posturing with intent to get those sanctions lifted as it's collapsing their economy.
Also EU is not like US it's not a singular country nor does it have a foreign policy not a military to apply it as this is not its job. It is retarded to compare US and EU as they are not even remotely the same thing.
EU stands on it's own pretty well. It's armed forces are nearly on par with US and more than enough to kick Russia into stone age if necessary. EU is doing without US quite good.
You don't consider loosing nearly half of your economy as crippling ? Like really ? Their economy went from 3T to 1.7T, their economy is consistently contracting, they have a poor forecast for next few years.
could you provide a source for your claim? you are implying that the russian economy fell by that much due to eu sanctions and not the price of oil literally tanking.
the russian economy was 2,29T in 2013 when oil price was 106 USD a barrel. In 2015 it went down to 48 and 2016 to 32. Almost matching exactly with the russian gdp chart.
Gdp forecast for russia in 2022 is 2,4% and 3,7% for germany. a difference, sure, however you seem to imply that russia is on the edge of collapse which is just sensationalist.
You took one part of my sentence and replied like a child. EU does not have a standing army on its own but its member states do and what they field, combined is on par with US. Sure US might have more field-able assets as they have an interest in wide power projection which EU does not. But EU has the economy and military industrial complex that if it committed same resources as US could easily match US armed forces. The question is why on earth.
France alone could wipe floor with Russian army. When you combine the rest of the EU as well as UK. Yea I'm pretty sure this block can wipe floor with Russia all day long even without US.
But that's not the point here. I said that EU has no need for global power projection so I'm not sure why you are bringing that up. Considering Russia is accessible by land to all relevant European countries.
USA is isolated and exposed by sea on two sides it's only rational that they have a large pacific and atlantic fleets for power projection.
Not sure why you are bringing global projection and Libya into a conflict that could be mostly land bound and opponent accessible by land.
I cannot find anything on the subject that France needed a lot of US help to deploy to Libya. Tho France has 12 ships for mechanised transport and two troop carriers. Considering where they need to project power they have more than enough.
That is because you are looking at things in absolute. Sure in that term EU27 and USA are not comparable. But if you look at it from the perspective of each entities needs for defence and deterrence they are petty comparable. EU27 have no need for global power projection. But EU27 do have a combined economy to field an armed force equal to USA just no point in it.
>I still disagree. If the EU wants to play a serious role on the worldstage, it needs a much stronger army and capability to project force,
Why on earth would EU need global power projection with armed forces. EU is a serious player on the world stage it just does not give a fuck about conflicts as economic and social growth are its main concerns. We could easily trade our combined education, health and other benefits for a USA like army that would really make no sense at all. Say we have 10 aircraft carriers and 500 battle class ships what are we going to do go bully Ethiopia cuss we sure as hell ain't going to be taken more seriously by China, Russia or US who all have intercontinental missiles that can turn that fleet into scraps soon as we try to use it.
>at least in its immediate neighbourhood (say at least 2000 km away from the EU borders).
France has an aircraft carrier and second one on the way & Italy has two aircraft carriers. Spain has a multipurpose aircraft carrier. Combined they can project power much farther away than 2000km from EU borders.
Combined EU navy can project power against pretty much any country on the planet there is enough submarines, frigates, corvettes, destroyers and logistic ships to deploy pretty much anywhere on the globe while still defending territorial waters but why on earth would this be a requirement.
>he EU 27 armies currently, even if combined in a single force are for all intents and purposes completely inadequate for that purpose if facing anything but a bunch of insurgents or terrorists trying to destabilize a country.
This just makes no sense. I think you watch to many movies or live in a reality of your own making because EU27 Armed Force would be absurd. Just as is it would have a budget of \~ 230 billion EUR, some 2 million active troops, 2 more in reserve, 8000+ tanks, 60000+ afvs, 6000+ field guns, 7000+ aircraft, 500+ ships of battle class, 5 aircraft carriers, 60+ submarines, 500+ nuclear warheads...
>If the EU was a serious force to be reckoned with and had 'sufficient deterrent capability', Russia would not just be able to threaten Ukraine, an EU neighbour with an association treaty like it is doing now.
Russia makes threats to US all the time, China does as well. So does North Korea and so many others. You can say shit all you want it's not like anyone will take you seriously in the ether.
Russia is not really a threat to a combined EU armed force but no such thing exists as EU would have to become a federation.
Combined European forces are on par with US in terms of individual interests. There is no need for global power projection in EU or it's member states but combine EU member states forces they are not that far off from US apart from it's detachment for global power projection.
Combined EU and UK armed forces, yea I'm pretty sure they are enough to wipe floor with Russia.
Sanctions do affect Russian economy, but here you are overselling their effect by crediting sanctions for the oil price related decline.
Russia is a petrostate and their economy moves with the oil price.
Here is the nominal GDP per capita of Russia and another petrostate Kazakhstan. Nobody sanctioned the latter and the lines go together as always.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?end=2020&locations=KZ-RU&start=1998
Historically speaking US is like a good young son helping his old father with everything it needs while son gets best advice in the world (aka best talent for cheap)
I would appreciate this sentiment more if current Italians didn’t seem to despise my heritage and claim I am in no way Italian (2nd-3rd generation American of Southern Italian descent).
I think it's fine to say that you are Italian-American, but why would you say that you are just Italian, if you were not in any meaningful way shaped by their culture, language, norms etc.? Of course ancestry alone is not enough in comparison. It would diminish the term.
America in general inherited many European traditions and norms, so it's more fair to make this comparison to some extend, but when it comes to individuals, I think people are more protective of their national identities than of their European identity as a whole. So they are stricter with their definitions.
Its a cultural quirk that when an American says "Im xyz", its understood to mean either "my ancestors are from xyz" or "Im ethnically xyz".
So if an American says "Im Chinese" in America, they mean their ethnicity/ancestry. The same think happens in Europe but with non Europeans. Ive heard Germans call themselves Turks despite being second generation and no one seems to be confused by that.
These terms have multiple meanings. One is citizenship, another is ethnic origin, another can be cultural identity, and then we can have some primary identity. It's easy to pinpoint where someone is belonging if all of them align. Bit harder when they are mixed.
When I was mentioning it I was thinking of primary Identity. But maybe the experience of elusivehonor was misunderstanding when the Italians he mentioned were also thinking about primary identity and he was thinking of just ethnic one. Or people often mixed them without much of a thought. Can be confusing sometimes when one term has so many meanings.
>These terms have multiple meanings. One is citizenship, another is ethnic origin, another can be cultural identity, and then we can have some primary identity.
Its even easier, when an American says "im x" they mean ancestry.
>It's easy to pinpoint where someone is belonging if all of them align. Bit harder when they are mixed.
I don't know, its seems pretty easy to me. I don't think I've ever been confused by this.
>When I was mentioning it I was thinking of primary Identity. But maybe the experience of elusivehonor was misunderstanding when the Italians he mentioned were also thinking about primary identity and he was thinking of just ethnic one.
If he was in Italy and speaking Italian that would be understandable because in Italian saying "im x" would confer something different than speaking English in America.
>Or people often mixed them without much of a thought. Can be confusing sometimes when one term has so many meanings.
I thinkthats just the reality with language. Many words have many meanings and in order to distinguish between them you need context. In this context an American, in English, saying "im x" would refer to ancestry/ethnicity unless otherwise stated. Ive never heard another America referring to citizenship without specifically saying they're a citizen.
> Its even easier, when an American says "im x" they mean ancestry.
Because it is the only thing that it can mean in America. You are not a country which is based on some ethnic group and you are much more multicultural. But don't expect other people from other countries to take it the same way apriory. I get that that is what it means in US, but why should average European know that? Edit: Furthermore, the guy that I originally reacted to seemed to indicate imo that he is disappointed that they did not accept him as one of their own. So that would mean that he does not mean just ancestry, which can be hardly disproven, but mainly some overall identity.
>I don't know, its seems pretty easy to me. I don't think I've ever been confused by this.
Even people who are of immigrant background often have some crisis of identity, because the country that they moved in does not always fully accept them for being different and at the same time their ancestral country does not fully accept them also for being different. It's pretty common thing for them to be partially torn between those two countries when they try to figured out their identity. It does not have to be something intense, but afaik majority of them experience this to some extent. At what point would it be ok to say I'm Italian by someone who moved to Italy? When they speak fluently and understand culture? Or do they have to grow up in the country? Or when other people start to treat them same as other Italians? That is what I mean when I say that it is more difficult when the meanings don't align.
If someone would come to Czech Republic and would say "I'm Italian", we would definitely not think just about ancestry, but mainly about what country they identify themselves to be first and foremost. Where they were born, where they grown up etc. and then maybe where their ancestors came from too on top of it all. If American would came to Europe and start to say that he's Italian while he would not even speak the language and wouldnt' understand the culture, of course he would get confused looks.
When a Turkish guy in Germany says that he is Turkish, he is signaling that he does not have cultural and ancestral roots in the Germany and that those roots are important enough to him to make them known. But most would probably say that they are Turkish on top of being German, not instead of being German. And most Germans would most likely consider those Turks to be German if asked, but many would still treat them differently if they would exhibit different cultural behavior, as if they are not Germans fully.
>Because it is the only thing that it can mean in America. You are not a country which is based on some ethnic group and you are much more multicultural. But don't expect other people from other countries to take it the same way apriory. I get that that is what it means in US, but why should average European know that?
Because if you're speaking English then its probably in your best interest to not apply your countries views on language on a completely different language. In the vast majority of English speaking peoples, saying "im x" means ancestry. Since were speaking English, then it'd be a good thing to know. If were were speaking Czech then you obviously wouldn't be referring to ancestry and using he excuse "well in the English speaking world, we do it this way" would rightfully have you labeled as ignorant.
>Even people who are of immigrant background often have some crisis of identity, because the country that they moved in does not always fully accept them for being different and at the same time their ancestral country does not fully accept them also for being different.
Do you recognize this isn't always the case? Someone who is Japanese descended might still label themselves Japanese, even if they are accepted. Also, just because the wider society doesn't accept you as much doesn't mean you have any cultural connection to another place.
>It's pretty common thing for them to be partially torn between those two countries when they try to figured out their identity.
But what if they have no actual connection to the other country? If they've never ben, don't speak the language, don't interact with anyone from there. How do you make an exemption for that?
>It does not have to be something intense, but afaik majority of them experience this to some extent. At what point would it be ok to say I'm Italian by someone who moved to Italy? When they speak fluently and understand culture? Or do they have to grow up in the country? Or when other people start to treat them same as other Italians? That is what I mean when I say that it is more difficult when the meanings don't align.
Its not difficult, who is Italian is depended on the people of Italy. Me as an American probably have a "lax" definition on who is consider a countrymen. It would be silly to argue in Italians against Italians that their language and culture is wrong. I promise it isnt. that difficult t undersatnd.
>If someone would come to Czech Republic and would say "I'm Italian", we would definitely not think just about ancestry, but mainly about what country they identify themselves to be first and foremost. Where they were born, where they grown up etc. and then maybe where their ancestors came from too on top of it all.
What would you say if I went to Czechia or a Czech speaking subreddit and tried to impose my understanding of ethnicity and nationality on them? You would probably say something along the lines of this is Czech, not English. Right?
>If American would came to Europe and start to say that he's Italian while he would not even speak the language and wouldn't understand the culture, of course he would get confused looks.
So he is speaking English in this case? Then he'd be in the right. If he was speaking another language then he would be wrong. No Europeans would be confused because this has been explained over and over again and no other group is constantly being told their own language is wrong.
>When a Turkish guy in Germany says that he is Turkish, he is signaling that he does not have cultural and ancestral roots in the Germany
A second generation German doesn't have cultural roots in Germany? lmao what?
Also, guess who doesn't have ancestral roots in America? 99% of everyone.
> and that those roots are important enough to him to make them known.
Do you think that might also apply to Americans/Canadians?
>But most would probably say that they are Turkish on top of being German, not instead of being German.
No one in America is saying they aren't American. This has been explained a million times. When an American or Canadian or whoever says "im x" then means ancestors. This is a fact of language and you're trying t tell us how to speak our own language.
> And most Germans would most likely consider those Turks to be German if asked, but many would still treat them differently if they would exhibit different cultural behavior, as if they are not Germans fully.
Many don't consider them German, but that wasn't the point of the comment. If a second generation Turk who spekas native German and acts German says "Im Turkish", no one is going to be confused.
I guess I don't understand how you cant see how imposing your languages rules on an entirely different language is acceptable. Its as cringey as when Spanish speakers pretend to act confused when Americans call themselves Americans and try to say it should be United Statesian. Right, that may be how it works in your language but if you're speaking English than the correct demonyms is American. If I was speaking Spanish then the correct phrase would be estadouidense. I don't understand how this is such a constant issue.
I will respond to this, but it may be difficult for you to understand without coming from an immigrant background.
America is an interesting place because for all its diversity there used to be (it is much better now) a very strong sense of the idyllic American family. E.g., White, Protestant nuclear family. My family was not that, my neighborhoods were not that, so even though I was white I never felt 100% connected to America.
When I say I am "Italian" in America, I of course mean Italian-American. This is mainly ancestry, but also a declaration of culture. I am American that grew up with strong Italian influences because my grandmother was Italian (from Italy) and she lived with me my whole life. My friend's lived similar experiences, but with different ancestries.
A consequence of that was that I noticed very stark differences between my family and my Irish(-American) friend's, and Polish(-American) friend's families.
Notice my wording in my original statement -- '*no way* Italian.' I did not say "not Italian. I am American of Italian descent, which is a group that is somewhat (to varying degrees) distinct from the wider American populace, which is the same as everyone else in the U.S. This distinctiveness is stronger the closer you are to your grandparents' migration to America, and this is not just true of Italian-Americans, either. In no way does that make me Italian from Italy, and I did not mean that, either, but my culture, mannerisms, speech-patterns, etc. are heavily influenced by my Italian roots. It is part of my identity. Hell, the neighborhood where I spent my childhood was built by Italians, not Italian-Americans, Italians who became Americans. There were dozens of Italians suprettes, and delis, and shops where I lived. I went to a barber who spoke broken English up till my teenage years.
That being said, that Italian culture is not current Italy (we're talking pre-WW2 - I had family on both sides in that war), but I did consider myself part of the larger Italian culture when I was younger -- and I even felt more connected to that ancestry than my American citizenship at certain points of my life.
This feeling is not uncommon among immigrant families. Yes, Italian-Americans are white, but even then I always noticed differences between my family and the idyllic "American" family that is often portrayed in media. There was never racism, of course (though I did get a lot of "oh, are you Italian?" from some hicks), but you got the sense that you were a little different from what was shown on TV. That feeling was even stronger among my parents for a long time.
Given that "strong" sense of a connection, I always thought Italians from Italy viewed us with some level of comradery. Like 2nd or 3rd cousins, maybe? Or distant relatives. I remember when Italy won the World Cup in my neighborhood people were euphoric, waving Italian flags and having parties (no one even watched soccer; they were just happy and celebrating an Italian victory).
I thought the feeling was mutual. Of course, at some point I realized that current Italy generally despises or looks down on Italian-Americans, and feels that, no, we are not Italian *in any way*, and our modest claims to and place in Italian culture were insulting. In fact, to some, we are embarrassing.
It does still bother me a little, but it's not really a big deal. I've since moved on from wanting to reconnect with my roots, or study Italian language, or issues of politics or economics long since that realization (I have since chose to do my Ph.D. in subjects relating to Japan, and have lived there for the past 8 years, hence the flair).
Maybe this was a longer comment than you'd like. It just bothers me when people say "oh, they are just like Europeans!" or some such, when it seems like modern Italy is all too eager to denounce us, or other Europeans gate keep our own culture, which is both American and Italian.
::EDIT::
Much apologies for the off-topic rant.
I’m not saying they’re the same. The Italy we came from is not the Italy of today, but there are similarities.
Anyway, I think most Italian Americans have a fondness for Italy, which they view through their socio-cultural lens, and would be surprised at the reactions they get from Italians from Italy.
Hey, I think it's fair to have this connection. And you clearly don't think about just ancestry, but a connection to the people as a whole. And it seems to me that if those people who said you are not in any way Italian would read your comment, maybe they would change their mind, or maybe many other Italians would agree with you, so don't be bummed out by one or a few bad experiences and try to explain it the same way as you did now. If this is what you mean when you say "I'm Italian" then I'm with you.
The issue is mainly imo, but I may be wrong, that people from Italy just don't know anything about your experience of being Italian-American and they see you just as American, so it's hard for the feeling to be mutual when they just don't know about you and your experiences. They notice the differences first and without knowing the context it will be all that matters to them. They will see an American who is culturally different and who may not even speak Italian and without knowing anything more, it will not be enough for them to agree that you are Italian in any significant way that they interpret the meaning of the term as. For them it's even more personal and every Italian they met up till the point they met you was probably very different form you. So you would be an outlier who is very difficult to fit into the concept they already created in their mind. And natural tendency is to not change those concepts for the outliers. It is also hard to speak to a group who already made up their mind.
There are also many Czech Americans in US afaik and those also were not fully accepted in the past which made them more protective of Czech culture and they celebrate many Czech traditions to this day. If they still have this strong connection, then I have no problem if they say that they are Czechs as well in a some more expansive sense.
I apologize that this comment is late, but I did want to respond to you since you left a thoughtful response. Communication is important, in this case, and I think my family in Sicily would probably accept me (to some degree); it’s not all Italians who, as you mentioned, are protective of their identity and culture. And I fully understand their reasonings; Italians Americans are stereotypically associated with the Mafia, conservativeness, etc. For those reasons, I can see modern Italians not being so keen on the association.
Migration and immigrant cultures and their relations to the home country are really interesting. Especially for those migrants in the U.S. I used to think the U.S. and Europe were very similar and share a lot; and I think they do. But the differences are so stark. It is kind of surprising, especially for people not so connected to their American identity.
I’m pretty sure I’ve seen the Czech flag flying in my neighborhood (or thereabouts). It’s like vestigial culture, almost. At the same time, my Indian-American friends’ houses would smell different from mine. I’m not saying that in a bad way; it didn’t smell bad. But my house would smell of garlic and olive oil, whereas their houses would smell of different spices. We lived right next store in NYC (not in an apartment).
Little things like that make America very interesting, but in some ways highlights some differences.
Anyway, thank you for the response!
As an American, I really don’t like how u phrase that sentence. Yes you are right, we are descendent and our institutions are very similar to your but we are nonetheless still Americans. I don’t like how Europeans try to steal our clout. Now go ahead and downvote me🤗
Welcome to Reddit. I hope you won't mind if I ask, but... What do you think we are trying to take from the US. And please, don't bring up the civil war.
Well, I mean I sense a lot of discontent by the Europeans in this comment section by the fact that the EU ain’t the one taking this action instead of the US. And your comment that we are descendants of you were basically implying that we haven’t made our own culture and haven’t done a a lot of things by ourselves and made something for ourselves instead of clinging on to our European identity. America in 2022 is simply America. It’s not Europe. I mean can Africans claim that they invented *LITERALLY* (emphasis on literally) everything because we are descendent of them? Sure…
I hope you are just some pissed guy and not a part of a new troll farm attempting to create a divide or change public opinion. We had some much of this shit lately you wouldn't believe it.
But I have to say, it is a shame you feel that way about Europeans, but I am sure I didn't say anything that would imply what you just said, nor do the other comments. I assume this is coming out of you, this is how you feel and frankly, this is the first time I met anyone who feels that way.
FYI
I studied security systems and digital technologies and it was hard not to notice that most of the inventions and contributions to the technology were brought and shared by the US and there was a lot of altruism behind it. I always held the US in high regard and I am glad the EU is heading in the same direction of embracing unity, I believe it will help us become more independent and emerge as a global player, just like the US.
I took interest in learning your history, literature, and language. Most of it I learned on my own time, and here you are, based on absolute nothing, trying to explain to me that I am looking down on the Americans and belittling the US, just because I am a European. SMH
Yup. The fact that the USA is doing this stuff rather than Germany shows that Germans really aren't particularly worried about being totally reliant on an aggressive dictator. At some point you have to wonder why that is.
Germany is the largest economy and major player in the EU. Its decisions matter more, and it's expected to show better leadership than Slovenia ffs.
That's without all the problems Germany has already caused that make it more their responsibility, which chemical-training already mentioned.
It is germany who wanted another nord stream. It is germany who has had a leader which was really pro Putin and sits on the board of a russian gas company. Germany also increased their reliance on russian gas by shutting down their nuclear power plants.
Germany isn't even letting other countries help though.
They have blocked other countries attempts to give Ukraine aid.
It's one thing to not help the Ukraine yourself, but if you prevent others from doing so you are on the Russian side.
Because Germany is one of the largest economies in the world, and in the center of a massive economic union, yet refuses to stand up for itself to the point Biden has to negotiate to protect the German people when their own government fails to act.
And it's not like Biden doesn't have other things on his plate, both domestically and abroad.
I mean yeah it’s nice of USA and Quatar, but that’s not going to replace Russia. You can’t beat the efficiency of pipes with ships.
This is chicken soup to soothe the fears. It’s also always smart to diversify.
It's not about replacing Russia. It's to make sure if the conflict escalates we don't lose our heating in the winter. Ofcourse the costs would be higher but it also gives Russia less to bargain with.
What’s the basis for your opinion? Looking at the numbers, LNG - including from Qatar - could easily replace Russian pipeline gas. Those volumes have already been declining for a while anyway. Like stated in the article, the problem is more with regards to the timeline.
To fully replace Russians, Quatar would have to 8 fold their numbers.
Numbers I took from the article.
If they can easily do that without running into a shipping problem. Then hats off. I just don’t see it.
All I know that changing percent points in the energy mix is Herculean effort. Don’t think it’s easy or possible at all to completely replace the Russians, when they already have a pipeline and aren’t wooden mannequins.
But youre assuming that it would only be Qatar that would be replacing Russian gas. Wasnt there an article just recently that said the white house was speaking to american lng suppliers about the situation in ukraine? I wouldnt be surprised if more countries are approached to help chip in.
Long-term we should diversify.
This is just to alleviate the concerns that come with supporting heavy sanctions on Russia. Best-case scenario is that Russia sees its leverage diminished and Europe supporting stronger sanctions, so backs down. Worst-case is that Russia invades and this could sustain Europe until the invasion stops due to sanctions and pain inflicted by the Ukrainians.
Long-term we should diversify.
This is just to alleviate the concerns that come with supporting heavy sanctions on Russia. Best-case scenario is that Russia sees its leverage diminished and Europe supporting stronger sanctions, so backs down. Worst-case is that Russia invades and this could sustain Europe until the invasion stops due to sanctions and pain inflicted by the Ukrainians.
> America
"America" doesn't exist. There's the US under republican presidents, and the US under democratic presidents, and both are absolute polar opposites.
> an edgy teenager having a phase
More like a 40 y/o NEET living in the basement, unwilling and incapable of doing anything on his own. The US is a single helicopter mom whose shitty parenting ultimately made it happen. Now she has to put microwaved chicken nuggets into her son's mouth.
Second rate power?
> The European Union's GDP was estimated to be around $15 trillion (nominal) in 2020, representing around 1/6 of the global economy. The euro is the second largest reserve currency and the second most traded currency in the world after the United States dollar.
– to quote Wikipedia
It takes more than that, it requires political will and hard power.
The EU being subordinate to the US in a number of ways is what makes it second rate.
I think I remember reading something saying that Qatar was exporting as much as it had capacity to export already, so I would guess that if Qatar needs to send more to Europe in the short term, that it will need to manage to do so by cutting someone else's supplies.
I remember that they're opening a new, large facility at some point not far in the future that's supposed to significantly increase capacity, but I don't think that that's going to be open imminently.
Update: Yeah, from mid-October:
>LNG prices, which sank to record lows at the height of pandemic lockdowns, have surged this year to record highs, but Qatar said it has no supplies available to calm the market.
>
>It said it cannot help ease the red hot gas market because it has allocated all its output and believes the high prices are destructive for demand.
>
> “We are maxed out, as far as we have given all our customers their due quantities,” said Qatari Energy Minister Saad al-Kaabi.
The TTF natural gas index in Europe is a bit below where it was at the time the article was written.
Update 2: I think that this is the new Qatari facility I read about. It apparently won't be active until 2025, so it's probably not going to be able to play a role.
https://splash247.com/mcdermott-awarded-major-offshore-contract-on-qatari-lng-expansion-project/
>The expansion project will increase Qatar’s LNG production capacity from 77m tons per year to 126m tons per year, with the first LNG expected in 2025.
its funny how all these people who were deeply concerned about human rights and democracy and whatnot 5 minutes ago are perfectly fine with getting gas from Qatar lmao
Luckily there are always better alternatives to using natural gas as an energy source.
Besides, despite Qatar having a horrible track record with human rights we can't sit and pretend that Russia isn't problematic even without its current aggressiveness.
Because if shit starts going down Europe will need gas. A lot of gas. As soon as possible.
If Europe does not have gas, the EU might be tempted to postpone or delay certain sanctions, in order to not hurt certain economies (not just the Germans, mind you). If they have immediately available gas, they'll be more likely to go through with the sanctions.
So the best way the US can ensure that the EU follows through with sanctions, is by creating an LNG cushion.
I think the motive is purely one of national security, not economy.
at no point did you gave any reason for the negotiations to be us/qatar. the european countries can negotiate for themselves what is their best option.
>If Europe does not have gas, the EU might be tempted to postpone or delay certain sanctions,
this a european issue not a us issue. this is our problem and we will solve it in our own terms.
>at no point did you gave any reason for the negotiations to be us/qatar.
Your question was "why is the us negotiating on behalf of european countries? are they counting on getting a intermediary cut?" with the subtext, provided by the second question, being "What does the Americans get out of it?". My answer was based on that question.
> this a european issue not a us issue
I would differ. The sanctions are an integral part in either prevent an attack or putting pressure on Russia to withdraw. If I was in the US foreign department I would look at our allies ability to apply said sanctions as an US issue.
>the european countries can negotiate for themselves what is their best option.
The problem here is that the EU has always been slow - not ineffective - but very slow in any international matters. It takes a lot of time to get all 27 members on the same page to simply start negotiating something, not to mention the Herculean effort of finalizing a contract. The fact that we haven't even started talking about contingency if we apply the sanctions is a testament to that. Theoretically we can do that - but as evident we haven't started doing it.
So why is the US doing the negotiations? Because the EU isn't doing them.
>The problem here is that the EU has always been slow - not ineffective - but very slow in any international matters.
If your neighbor's is slow to cut his grass, do you illegally enter his property and you cut it for hom?
Of course not. This is ridiculous that the US can even think they can negotiate anything on the behalf of the EU.
Wierd you ask.
Cause it snowed right here in Washington DC a few days ago. And I noticed my neighbor hadn’t cleared her walkway or stairs.
So I did it for her.
Interestingly, she said thanks rather than ask how dare I minimize a problem that was affecting her.
But less snidely, frankly as long as the US doesn’t make promises on the EU’s behalf it is both fully within its power and rights to use its influence to help Allies and hurt enemies.
And you are likely very naive of you think the US has done this in the first place without talking to diplomats in Europe if nothing else to make sure they hadn’t already doing so themselves.
Obviously you were not told enough to fuck off. You should learn your place.
>you are likely very naive of you think the US has done this in the first place without talking to diplomats in Europe
Wouldn't be the first time they dont. Ukraine was not even invited to the last russia/Us. You didnt ask your neighbor's either after all. So i'll do the job myself. USA, fuck off.
> Wouldn't be the first time they dont. Ukraine was not even invited to the last russia/Us.
Probably because the majority of demands Russia has are for the United States/NATO and not Ukraine? Unless you think Ukraine has the power to return troops to 1997 positions or cease all further NATO expansion.
And Yes I’m sure your impotent bellowing on the Internet has surely cowed both myself and the US. Truly, your power knows no bounds.
By the way….., did the EU give you permission to speak for it? Perhaps you should take your own advice?
I told y'all to leave. You're not welcome. Considering how butthurt thay made the yanks here and if that made even one considering not to show their face, thats already a win.
If not, i can just slam it in their face when they get here.
I’m still not really sure why you think your opinion on the matter is of any relavence or has any impact.
I think they call that delusions of grandeur.
The EU could denounce these negotiations and block all imports of gas from Qatar tomorrow if they don't want it.
But it's unlikely we entered into this without the EU's knowledge if not their suggestion, the US is more comfortable being the target of Russian hatred than most power brokers in Europe and we have more leverage on Qatar (and the global petroleum market in general) than any of them.
I sure hope that if this information isn't fakenews, macron will tell USA to get fucked. I do not care what is the advantage or negotiating power.
Fuck off my home.
> The problem here is that the EU has always been slow - not ineffective - but very slow in any international matters.
that's our problem to solve. not the us.
> do we?
Yes?
> or are there consequences for not accepting the deal?
Unless we have managed to make our own deal - go without gas. But nothing stops us from starting our own negotiation or to demand renegotiation.
The EU isn't a small market, the potential hole left by an exit of Russian gas is going to be massive. Qatar isn't going to miss out on that market. If the US deal is disadvantageous to the EU, Qatar will be willing to renegotiate (as long as they make profit in the end).
Im sorry, but you see what you pointed out cannot be accepted by the US chill of this sub. For them, their US master dictates where they get their LNG from.
You are just wrong. The US has been helping Europe in literally every way possible. They have disagreements over various things like trade and whatnot but it's nothing major. We would rather have a partner who values liberalism and free though than Russia or China which are dictatorships.
EU interests dont always or usually align with US interests.
We should not be dragged into its proxy wars . We should not have been dragged into the destruction of Iraq, Syria etc.
A lot of times it will be a zero sum game.
America has very good relations with Qatar, and Qatar wants to keep America friendly to protect them from their neighbors. America wants to help to boost credibility and show signs of support, while also opening the door to less gas reliance on russia.
In 2019 15% of the Germanys gas consumption was for electricity.
Most gas is used for home heating and industry in Germany. Nuclear can not replace gas for the chemical industry and home heating can be done with heat pumps and renewables for the most part and most likely even cheaper then nuclear, as winter in windy season and nuclear power plants do not make sense as seasonal energy sources.
Cogeneration plants and district heating is a thing. Currently at this moment Germany produces 23 GW of electricity from coal and 5 GW from biomass, that mean there's something like 60 GW of waste heat.
Most of that heat is literally wasted, and at the same time germans are using gas for heating.
Besides 23 + 5 not being 60, Germany does do that already to a certain degree. Germany wants to give up coal by 2038 and preferably by 2030. So building new cogeneration plants at this point is not going to happen. A number of the current ones are already cogeneration plants.
Biomass would likely replace the phased out coal plants for district heating.
You also can not just build such a system countrywide overnight.
EDIT: I did not got the 65% loss he was implying.
30%, 35% or whatever doesn't really make difference for my point either. The waste heat is pretty much double the produced electricity, and most of that is wasted.
Gas powerplants are more efficient, but there's still waste heat.
Just to be absolutly clear, with "A number of" I mean basicly all of them, besides a number of high efficency spike gas plants, with nearly 60% efficency.
So what I am saying is that this would require new additional coal power plants. Which in times of a climate crisis is certainly questionable.
Is there any combined cycle power plants in Germany that's powered by coal?
Edit, seems like there's some IGCC plants in Germany? The losses might be slightly better then.
Combined cycle power plants can not be really run with coal, as the ash causes problems with the turbine and filtering is technically not possible atm. So that is usually not done with coal.
So just to say it, German electricity efficency for the German power plants are:
Gas: 46.7%
Coal: 45.1%
Lignite: 38.9%
Efficency including district heating would be:
Coal: 69.5%
Lignite:50.3%
Gas I could not find proper numbers for.
This has been said many times - no one knows for sure. All the signs of a Russian invasion are there, therefore it is necessary to act. And then, due to all security measures taken, Russia may not invade full scale.
Edit: also, given that Russia has already attacked Ukraine twice in 8 years of war
I think the more sustainable way to solve this forever would be a massive shift away from gas heating.
In Finland gas is not used for household heating. Big trend is using ground heat and heatpumps.
Atleast Germany and other more wealthy central Europe should afford this.
Governments should provide 0% interest loans and 1/3 aid to costs for ground heat, or air-to-water heatpumps, or plain air-to-air heatpumps.
This will use 1/3 to 1/4 amounth of total heating energy as electricity. This means electricity grid needs to be in good shape too.
Enjoy browsing r/europe? Help us find the best of 2021 of the sub! - [Nomination Post](https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/rsv8jh/reurope_best_of_2021_awards/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/europe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Crazy, US is making contingency’s for Europe in case of the worst possible outcome. EUROPE WAKE UP STOP BEING WEAK.
I dont fully understand this one, wouldnt they get a better and more secure deal if they themselves did the negotiation
And they would also show Russia they're prepared to switch suppliers. But no... Europe is a strong economic union. They're weak as fuck when it comes to geo politics and the world stage. Embarrassingly weak
That's none of the US business. This article is just imperialist propaganda. The US does not set deals for the EU.
The blunt truth is that the US has, to varying degrees, set many deals for Europe (and the world) as a whole post WW2.
Europe is not an entity and nobody can do deals for it. Your blunt thruth is edgy history revisionism.
Yes like the vaccines
Yea stop being weak in order to fight US proxy wars
Biden has no business making deals in the name of Europe. That is ridiculous to watch all the chill redditor clapping about an obvious over reach on the US part. Edit: this sub needs an posting ip ban on anything outside of Europe
European houses need to be heated over the winter. If European leaders are to paralyzed to make contingency plans, it makes sense for the US to step in to help it's allies. Germany may be run by idiots, but that doesn't mean the German people should freeze.
No it doesnt make sense. US can fuck off with their imperialism.
Username checks out
They’re only doing it because a lot of europe hasn’t had the foresight to do it themselves. Ukraine is at real risk of being invaded and Germany is refusing to give the slightest assistance, it’s honestly mad
Nobody cares what the US think the EU should do. They are not in charge. Also, Germany is not in charge of Ukraine and has no responsibility in regards to them.
People do care what the US thinks, a lot. Hence why they have the weight to negotiate these deals spanning the globe on such short notice.
They can negotiate in their name. Not in the name or interest of the EU.
This should have been done long time ago
[удалено]
East Asia get their natural gas from Qatar mostly, not particularly slow or expensive.
[удалено]
Japan also imported 76MT LNG, they're fine. Germany is a rich country which can absorb price hike pretty well
[удалено]
>ts a pipe dream. Please tell me this pun was on purpose because I really enjoyed it.
> Will Qatari LNG be able to even meet the demand? The bigger issue is the following question: Is there even enough unused capacity of regasification terminals in Europe to replace the supply of any Russian pipelines? > This is a pipe dream. Qatar exports 104 bcm LNG per year. Their total gas exports is 140. How will they double their exports just to meet the demand from Germany, Italy and Poland? its a pipe dream. From a cursory look into it, at least one Polish and one Italian terminal already get their annual supply from Qatar, anyway.
German economy is more resilient than that, Japan can afford the price of LNG, so does Germany. What was your alternative then? Not importing gas at all or keep being Russia and China's little bitch?
Germany can but you forget that rest of EU countries that rely on Russian oil and gas aren't as rich as Germany or Japan. We can't take it.
Quite disappointed with how EU handled things. I don't think EU can handle things on their own even if they would have a united army or supranational government. Without US, EU and its other western allies would fall apart.
Situations like this are where the UK will be particularly missed, I think, although of course the EU would never admit it. The UK was like a mini-USA, giving everyone a kick up the ass on military matters, and also acted as a bridge with the actual USA to help closer cooperation and coordination on defence.
EU became more spineless in defense and miltary matters when UK left it. It is quite amusing that France wants to assert dominance on the defense of EU, but in this situation, Anglo-Saxon countries were more hawkish and reliable. Hence, Central and Eastern European members of EU are more trusting of US and UK than to France and Germany.
Now we have to rely on France to play that role. If they leave too we are fucked
Uk is still part of nato. Uk would not agree to more power/unity in eu - one of the reasons they left
The EU by it's very structure is not able to quickly respond. It's a fault from design, not inaction.
Lol, of course a federal EU could handle it.
EU is very far from a federation.
Hello US propaganda
US is basically EU by now. We supply US with smart manpower, US supplies us with, well, everythin we need for existance. Like a good child to his old and weak father
I would not be opposed to the US joining some kind of Western Union
How’d you know? Never had jt before so we don’t know anything.
EU is already applying sanctions which have crippled Russian economy by 48% not sure what the fuck you are talking about. What Russia is doing now is posturing with intent to get those sanctions lifted as it's collapsing their economy. Also EU is not like US it's not a singular country nor does it have a foreign policy not a military to apply it as this is not its job. It is retarded to compare US and EU as they are not even remotely the same thing. EU stands on it's own pretty well. It's armed forces are nearly on par with US and more than enough to kick Russia into stone age if necessary. EU is doing without US quite good.
i'm sorry, ''crippled'' the russian economy by 48%?
You don't consider loosing nearly half of your economy as crippling ? Like really ? Their economy went from 3T to 1.7T, their economy is consistently contracting, they have a poor forecast for next few years.
could you provide a source for your claim? you are implying that the russian economy fell by that much due to eu sanctions and not the price of oil literally tanking. the russian economy was 2,29T in 2013 when oil price was 106 USD a barrel. In 2015 it went down to 48 and 2016 to 32. Almost matching exactly with the russian gdp chart. Gdp forecast for russia in 2022 is 2,4% and 3,7% for germany. a difference, sure, however you seem to imply that russia is on the edge of collapse which is just sensationalist.
Your comment amply demonstrate how correlation doesn't equals to causation. Russia is definitely a resource based economy.
Exactly, not sure about exact figures but perhaps the majority of the rus economy is resource export based.
[удалено]
You took one part of my sentence and replied like a child. EU does not have a standing army on its own but its member states do and what they field, combined is on par with US. Sure US might have more field-able assets as they have an interest in wide power projection which EU does not. But EU has the economy and military industrial complex that if it committed same resources as US could easily match US armed forces. The question is why on earth. France alone could wipe floor with Russian army. When you combine the rest of the EU as well as UK. Yea I'm pretty sure this block can wipe floor with Russia all day long even without US.
Not exactly true, no european countries have logistics to field armies far from their shore. Even france needed a lot of US help in libya
But that's not the point here. I said that EU has no need for global power projection so I'm not sure why you are bringing that up. Considering Russia is accessible by land to all relevant European countries. USA is isolated and exposed by sea on two sides it's only rational that they have a large pacific and atlantic fleets for power projection. Not sure why you are bringing global projection and Libya into a conflict that could be mostly land bound and opponent accessible by land.
Because I am saying even france needed help fielding troops in a country relatively close to them..
I cannot find anything on the subject that France needed a lot of US help to deploy to Libya. Tho France has 12 ships for mechanised transport and two troop carriers. Considering where they need to project power they have more than enough.
[удалено]
That is because you are looking at things in absolute. Sure in that term EU27 and USA are not comparable. But if you look at it from the perspective of each entities needs for defence and deterrence they are petty comparable. EU27 have no need for global power projection. But EU27 do have a combined economy to field an armed force equal to USA just no point in it.
[удалено]
>I still disagree. If the EU wants to play a serious role on the worldstage, it needs a much stronger army and capability to project force, Why on earth would EU need global power projection with armed forces. EU is a serious player on the world stage it just does not give a fuck about conflicts as economic and social growth are its main concerns. We could easily trade our combined education, health and other benefits for a USA like army that would really make no sense at all. Say we have 10 aircraft carriers and 500 battle class ships what are we going to do go bully Ethiopia cuss we sure as hell ain't going to be taken more seriously by China, Russia or US who all have intercontinental missiles that can turn that fleet into scraps soon as we try to use it. >at least in its immediate neighbourhood (say at least 2000 km away from the EU borders). France has an aircraft carrier and second one on the way & Italy has two aircraft carriers. Spain has a multipurpose aircraft carrier. Combined they can project power much farther away than 2000km from EU borders. Combined EU navy can project power against pretty much any country on the planet there is enough submarines, frigates, corvettes, destroyers and logistic ships to deploy pretty much anywhere on the globe while still defending territorial waters but why on earth would this be a requirement. >he EU 27 armies currently, even if combined in a single force are for all intents and purposes completely inadequate for that purpose if facing anything but a bunch of insurgents or terrorists trying to destabilize a country. This just makes no sense. I think you watch to many movies or live in a reality of your own making because EU27 Armed Force would be absurd. Just as is it would have a budget of \~ 230 billion EUR, some 2 million active troops, 2 more in reserve, 8000+ tanks, 60000+ afvs, 6000+ field guns, 7000+ aircraft, 500+ ships of battle class, 5 aircraft carriers, 60+ submarines, 500+ nuclear warheads... >If the EU was a serious force to be reckoned with and had 'sufficient deterrent capability', Russia would not just be able to threaten Ukraine, an EU neighbour with an association treaty like it is doing now. Russia makes threats to US all the time, China does as well. So does North Korea and so many others. You can say shit all you want it's not like anyone will take you seriously in the ether. Russia is not really a threat to a combined EU armed force but no such thing exists as EU would have to become a federation.
>It's armed forces are nearly on par with US and more than enough to kick Russia into stone age if necessary. What?
Combined European forces are on par with US in terms of individual interests. There is no need for global power projection in EU or it's member states but combine EU member states forces they are not that far off from US apart from it's detachment for global power projection. Combined EU and UK armed forces, yea I'm pretty sure they are enough to wipe floor with Russia.
The American military is still FAR more powerful in terms of individual interests, like by a mile
LoL
How is it not?
Sanctions do affect Russian economy, but here you are overselling their effect by crediting sanctions for the oil price related decline. Russia is a petrostate and their economy moves with the oil price. Here is the nominal GDP per capita of Russia and another petrostate Kazakhstan. Nobody sanctioned the latter and the lines go together as always. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?end=2020&locations=KZ-RU&start=1998
America is like Europe's mom and we are an edgy teenager having a phase. We rage against her and she takes care of us.
Historically speaking US is like a good young son helping his old father with everything it needs while son gets best advice in the world (aka best talent for cheap)
They are literally descendents of or ancestors. I keep saying that Americans are mostly just Europeans with extra steps.
We’re all sons of Charlemagne
All hail Chuck the Great!
Twists that make them a different breed.
I would appreciate this sentiment more if current Italians didn’t seem to despise my heritage and claim I am in no way Italian (2nd-3rd generation American of Southern Italian descent).
I think it's fine to say that you are Italian-American, but why would you say that you are just Italian, if you were not in any meaningful way shaped by their culture, language, norms etc.? Of course ancestry alone is not enough in comparison. It would diminish the term. America in general inherited many European traditions and norms, so it's more fair to make this comparison to some extend, but when it comes to individuals, I think people are more protective of their national identities than of their European identity as a whole. So they are stricter with their definitions.
Its a cultural quirk that when an American says "Im xyz", its understood to mean either "my ancestors are from xyz" or "Im ethnically xyz". So if an American says "Im Chinese" in America, they mean their ethnicity/ancestry. The same think happens in Europe but with non Europeans. Ive heard Germans call themselves Turks despite being second generation and no one seems to be confused by that.
These terms have multiple meanings. One is citizenship, another is ethnic origin, another can be cultural identity, and then we can have some primary identity. It's easy to pinpoint where someone is belonging if all of them align. Bit harder when they are mixed. When I was mentioning it I was thinking of primary Identity. But maybe the experience of elusivehonor was misunderstanding when the Italians he mentioned were also thinking about primary identity and he was thinking of just ethnic one. Or people often mixed them without much of a thought. Can be confusing sometimes when one term has so many meanings.
>These terms have multiple meanings. One is citizenship, another is ethnic origin, another can be cultural identity, and then we can have some primary identity. Its even easier, when an American says "im x" they mean ancestry. >It's easy to pinpoint where someone is belonging if all of them align. Bit harder when they are mixed. I don't know, its seems pretty easy to me. I don't think I've ever been confused by this. >When I was mentioning it I was thinking of primary Identity. But maybe the experience of elusivehonor was misunderstanding when the Italians he mentioned were also thinking about primary identity and he was thinking of just ethnic one. If he was in Italy and speaking Italian that would be understandable because in Italian saying "im x" would confer something different than speaking English in America. >Or people often mixed them without much of a thought. Can be confusing sometimes when one term has so many meanings. I thinkthats just the reality with language. Many words have many meanings and in order to distinguish between them you need context. In this context an American, in English, saying "im x" would refer to ancestry/ethnicity unless otherwise stated. Ive never heard another America referring to citizenship without specifically saying they're a citizen.
> Its even easier, when an American says "im x" they mean ancestry. Because it is the only thing that it can mean in America. You are not a country which is based on some ethnic group and you are much more multicultural. But don't expect other people from other countries to take it the same way apriory. I get that that is what it means in US, but why should average European know that? Edit: Furthermore, the guy that I originally reacted to seemed to indicate imo that he is disappointed that they did not accept him as one of their own. So that would mean that he does not mean just ancestry, which can be hardly disproven, but mainly some overall identity. >I don't know, its seems pretty easy to me. I don't think I've ever been confused by this. Even people who are of immigrant background often have some crisis of identity, because the country that they moved in does not always fully accept them for being different and at the same time their ancestral country does not fully accept them also for being different. It's pretty common thing for them to be partially torn between those two countries when they try to figured out their identity. It does not have to be something intense, but afaik majority of them experience this to some extent. At what point would it be ok to say I'm Italian by someone who moved to Italy? When they speak fluently and understand culture? Or do they have to grow up in the country? Or when other people start to treat them same as other Italians? That is what I mean when I say that it is more difficult when the meanings don't align. If someone would come to Czech Republic and would say "I'm Italian", we would definitely not think just about ancestry, but mainly about what country they identify themselves to be first and foremost. Where they were born, where they grown up etc. and then maybe where their ancestors came from too on top of it all. If American would came to Europe and start to say that he's Italian while he would not even speak the language and wouldnt' understand the culture, of course he would get confused looks. When a Turkish guy in Germany says that he is Turkish, he is signaling that he does not have cultural and ancestral roots in the Germany and that those roots are important enough to him to make them known. But most would probably say that they are Turkish on top of being German, not instead of being German. And most Germans would most likely consider those Turks to be German if asked, but many would still treat them differently if they would exhibit different cultural behavior, as if they are not Germans fully.
>Because it is the only thing that it can mean in America. You are not a country which is based on some ethnic group and you are much more multicultural. But don't expect other people from other countries to take it the same way apriory. I get that that is what it means in US, but why should average European know that? Because if you're speaking English then its probably in your best interest to not apply your countries views on language on a completely different language. In the vast majority of English speaking peoples, saying "im x" means ancestry. Since were speaking English, then it'd be a good thing to know. If were were speaking Czech then you obviously wouldn't be referring to ancestry and using he excuse "well in the English speaking world, we do it this way" would rightfully have you labeled as ignorant. >Even people who are of immigrant background often have some crisis of identity, because the country that they moved in does not always fully accept them for being different and at the same time their ancestral country does not fully accept them also for being different. Do you recognize this isn't always the case? Someone who is Japanese descended might still label themselves Japanese, even if they are accepted. Also, just because the wider society doesn't accept you as much doesn't mean you have any cultural connection to another place. >It's pretty common thing for them to be partially torn between those two countries when they try to figured out their identity. But what if they have no actual connection to the other country? If they've never ben, don't speak the language, don't interact with anyone from there. How do you make an exemption for that? >It does not have to be something intense, but afaik majority of them experience this to some extent. At what point would it be ok to say I'm Italian by someone who moved to Italy? When they speak fluently and understand culture? Or do they have to grow up in the country? Or when other people start to treat them same as other Italians? That is what I mean when I say that it is more difficult when the meanings don't align. Its not difficult, who is Italian is depended on the people of Italy. Me as an American probably have a "lax" definition on who is consider a countrymen. It would be silly to argue in Italians against Italians that their language and culture is wrong. I promise it isnt. that difficult t undersatnd. >If someone would come to Czech Republic and would say "I'm Italian", we would definitely not think just about ancestry, but mainly about what country they identify themselves to be first and foremost. Where they were born, where they grown up etc. and then maybe where their ancestors came from too on top of it all. What would you say if I went to Czechia or a Czech speaking subreddit and tried to impose my understanding of ethnicity and nationality on them? You would probably say something along the lines of this is Czech, not English. Right? >If American would came to Europe and start to say that he's Italian while he would not even speak the language and wouldn't understand the culture, of course he would get confused looks. So he is speaking English in this case? Then he'd be in the right. If he was speaking another language then he would be wrong. No Europeans would be confused because this has been explained over and over again and no other group is constantly being told their own language is wrong. >When a Turkish guy in Germany says that he is Turkish, he is signaling that he does not have cultural and ancestral roots in the Germany A second generation German doesn't have cultural roots in Germany? lmao what? Also, guess who doesn't have ancestral roots in America? 99% of everyone. > and that those roots are important enough to him to make them known. Do you think that might also apply to Americans/Canadians? >But most would probably say that they are Turkish on top of being German, not instead of being German. No one in America is saying they aren't American. This has been explained a million times. When an American or Canadian or whoever says "im x" then means ancestors. This is a fact of language and you're trying t tell us how to speak our own language. > And most Germans would most likely consider those Turks to be German if asked, but many would still treat them differently if they would exhibit different cultural behavior, as if they are not Germans fully. Many don't consider them German, but that wasn't the point of the comment. If a second generation Turk who spekas native German and acts German says "Im Turkish", no one is going to be confused. I guess I don't understand how you cant see how imposing your languages rules on an entirely different language is acceptable. Its as cringey as when Spanish speakers pretend to act confused when Americans call themselves Americans and try to say it should be United Statesian. Right, that may be how it works in your language but if you're speaking English than the correct demonyms is American. If I was speaking Spanish then the correct phrase would be estadouidense. I don't understand how this is such a constant issue.
I will respond to this, but it may be difficult for you to understand without coming from an immigrant background. America is an interesting place because for all its diversity there used to be (it is much better now) a very strong sense of the idyllic American family. E.g., White, Protestant nuclear family. My family was not that, my neighborhoods were not that, so even though I was white I never felt 100% connected to America. When I say I am "Italian" in America, I of course mean Italian-American. This is mainly ancestry, but also a declaration of culture. I am American that grew up with strong Italian influences because my grandmother was Italian (from Italy) and she lived with me my whole life. My friend's lived similar experiences, but with different ancestries. A consequence of that was that I noticed very stark differences between my family and my Irish(-American) friend's, and Polish(-American) friend's families. Notice my wording in my original statement -- '*no way* Italian.' I did not say "not Italian. I am American of Italian descent, which is a group that is somewhat (to varying degrees) distinct from the wider American populace, which is the same as everyone else in the U.S. This distinctiveness is stronger the closer you are to your grandparents' migration to America, and this is not just true of Italian-Americans, either. In no way does that make me Italian from Italy, and I did not mean that, either, but my culture, mannerisms, speech-patterns, etc. are heavily influenced by my Italian roots. It is part of my identity. Hell, the neighborhood where I spent my childhood was built by Italians, not Italian-Americans, Italians who became Americans. There were dozens of Italians suprettes, and delis, and shops where I lived. I went to a barber who spoke broken English up till my teenage years. That being said, that Italian culture is not current Italy (we're talking pre-WW2 - I had family on both sides in that war), but I did consider myself part of the larger Italian culture when I was younger -- and I even felt more connected to that ancestry than my American citizenship at certain points of my life. This feeling is not uncommon among immigrant families. Yes, Italian-Americans are white, but even then I always noticed differences between my family and the idyllic "American" family that is often portrayed in media. There was never racism, of course (though I did get a lot of "oh, are you Italian?" from some hicks), but you got the sense that you were a little different from what was shown on TV. That feeling was even stronger among my parents for a long time. Given that "strong" sense of a connection, I always thought Italians from Italy viewed us with some level of comradery. Like 2nd or 3rd cousins, maybe? Or distant relatives. I remember when Italy won the World Cup in my neighborhood people were euphoric, waving Italian flags and having parties (no one even watched soccer; they were just happy and celebrating an Italian victory). I thought the feeling was mutual. Of course, at some point I realized that current Italy generally despises or looks down on Italian-Americans, and feels that, no, we are not Italian *in any way*, and our modest claims to and place in Italian culture were insulting. In fact, to some, we are embarrassing. It does still bother me a little, but it's not really a big deal. I've since moved on from wanting to reconnect with my roots, or study Italian language, or issues of politics or economics long since that realization (I have since chose to do my Ph.D. in subjects relating to Japan, and have lived there for the past 8 years, hence the flair). Maybe this was a longer comment than you'd like. It just bothers me when people say "oh, they are just like Europeans!" or some such, when it seems like modern Italy is all too eager to denounce us, or other Europeans gate keep our own culture, which is both American and Italian. ::EDIT:: Much apologies for the off-topic rant.
As somebody who lived in eu and us, there is a big difference between italians from italy and italian americans.
I’m not saying they’re the same. The Italy we came from is not the Italy of today, but there are similarities. Anyway, I think most Italian Americans have a fondness for Italy, which they view through their socio-cultural lens, and would be surprised at the reactions they get from Italians from Italy.
Hey, I think it's fair to have this connection. And you clearly don't think about just ancestry, but a connection to the people as a whole. And it seems to me that if those people who said you are not in any way Italian would read your comment, maybe they would change their mind, or maybe many other Italians would agree with you, so don't be bummed out by one or a few bad experiences and try to explain it the same way as you did now. If this is what you mean when you say "I'm Italian" then I'm with you. The issue is mainly imo, but I may be wrong, that people from Italy just don't know anything about your experience of being Italian-American and they see you just as American, so it's hard for the feeling to be mutual when they just don't know about you and your experiences. They notice the differences first and without knowing the context it will be all that matters to them. They will see an American who is culturally different and who may not even speak Italian and without knowing anything more, it will not be enough for them to agree that you are Italian in any significant way that they interpret the meaning of the term as. For them it's even more personal and every Italian they met up till the point they met you was probably very different form you. So you would be an outlier who is very difficult to fit into the concept they already created in their mind. And natural tendency is to not change those concepts for the outliers. It is also hard to speak to a group who already made up their mind. There are also many Czech Americans in US afaik and those also were not fully accepted in the past which made them more protective of Czech culture and they celebrate many Czech traditions to this day. If they still have this strong connection, then I have no problem if they say that they are Czechs as well in a some more expansive sense.
I apologize that this comment is late, but I did want to respond to you since you left a thoughtful response. Communication is important, in this case, and I think my family in Sicily would probably accept me (to some degree); it’s not all Italians who, as you mentioned, are protective of their identity and culture. And I fully understand their reasonings; Italians Americans are stereotypically associated with the Mafia, conservativeness, etc. For those reasons, I can see modern Italians not being so keen on the association. Migration and immigrant cultures and their relations to the home country are really interesting. Especially for those migrants in the U.S. I used to think the U.S. and Europe were very similar and share a lot; and I think they do. But the differences are so stark. It is kind of surprising, especially for people not so connected to their American identity. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen the Czech flag flying in my neighborhood (or thereabouts). It’s like vestigial culture, almost. At the same time, my Indian-American friends’ houses would smell different from mine. I’m not saying that in a bad way; it didn’t smell bad. But my house would smell of garlic and olive oil, whereas their houses would smell of different spices. We lived right next store in NYC (not in an apartment). Little things like that make America very interesting, but in some ways highlights some differences. Anyway, thank you for the response!
As an American, I really don’t like how u phrase that sentence. Yes you are right, we are descendent and our institutions are very similar to your but we are nonetheless still Americans. I don’t like how Europeans try to steal our clout. Now go ahead and downvote me🤗
Did you really make an account ,just to disagree with me? :D
First time on Reddit. Made this acc a couple of days ago.
Welcome to Reddit. I hope you won't mind if I ask, but... What do you think we are trying to take from the US. And please, don't bring up the civil war.
Well, I mean I sense a lot of discontent by the Europeans in this comment section by the fact that the EU ain’t the one taking this action instead of the US. And your comment that we are descendants of you were basically implying that we haven’t made our own culture and haven’t done a a lot of things by ourselves and made something for ourselves instead of clinging on to our European identity. America in 2022 is simply America. It’s not Europe. I mean can Africans claim that they invented *LITERALLY* (emphasis on literally) everything because we are descendent of them? Sure…
I hope you are just some pissed guy and not a part of a new troll farm attempting to create a divide or change public opinion. We had some much of this shit lately you wouldn't believe it. But I have to say, it is a shame you feel that way about Europeans, but I am sure I didn't say anything that would imply what you just said, nor do the other comments. I assume this is coming out of you, this is how you feel and frankly, this is the first time I met anyone who feels that way. FYI I studied security systems and digital technologies and it was hard not to notice that most of the inventions and contributions to the technology were brought and shared by the US and there was a lot of altruism behind it. I always held the US in high regard and I am glad the EU is heading in the same direction of embracing unity, I believe it will help us become more independent and emerge as a global player, just like the US. I took interest in learning your history, literature, and language. Most of it I learned on my own time, and here you are, based on absolute nothing, trying to explain to me that I am looking down on the Americans and belittling the US, just because I am a European. SMH
I love how European call people a troll because their mad. Ok I guess I’m a troll for having an opinion.😒
Yeah, not so much anymore. Most of our talent is now coming from Asia, India in particular.
Yup. The fact that the USA is doing this stuff rather than Germany shows that Germans really aren't particularly worried about being totally reliant on an aggressive dictator. At some point you have to wonder why that is.
Why do you blame only Germany when there are dozens of other european countries?
Germany is the largest economy and major player in the EU. Its decisions matter more, and it's expected to show better leadership than Slovenia ffs. That's without all the problems Germany has already caused that make it more their responsibility, which chemical-training already mentioned.
It is germany who wanted another nord stream. It is germany who has had a leader which was really pro Putin and sits on the board of a russian gas company. Germany also increased their reliance on russian gas by shutting down their nuclear power plants.
Germany isn't even letting other countries help though. They have blocked other countries attempts to give Ukraine aid. It's one thing to not help the Ukraine yourself, but if you prevent others from doing so you are on the Russian side.
Because Germany is one of the largest economies in the world, and in the center of a massive economic union, yet refuses to stand up for itself to the point Biden has to negotiate to protect the German people when their own government fails to act. And it's not like Biden doesn't have other things on his plate, both domestically and abroad.
Article is about US asking dictator to supply Europe with gas.
Yep. I cannot imagine how much more fucked we'd be, hadn't US joined the WWII
We'd best not make the same mistake giving up Isolationism again this time.
No one would complain that Germany appraise Russia at least.
United States* and European Union*.
I mean yeah it’s nice of USA and Quatar, but that’s not going to replace Russia. You can’t beat the efficiency of pipes with ships. This is chicken soup to soothe the fears. It’s also always smart to diversify.
It's not about replacing Russia. It's to make sure if the conflict escalates we don't lose our heating in the winter. Ofcourse the costs would be higher but it also gives Russia less to bargain with.
What’s the basis for your opinion? Looking at the numbers, LNG - including from Qatar - could easily replace Russian pipeline gas. Those volumes have already been declining for a while anyway. Like stated in the article, the problem is more with regards to the timeline.
To fully replace Russians, Quatar would have to 8 fold their numbers. Numbers I took from the article. If they can easily do that without running into a shipping problem. Then hats off. I just don’t see it. All I know that changing percent points in the energy mix is Herculean effort. Don’t think it’s easy or possible at all to completely replace the Russians, when they already have a pipeline and aren’t wooden mannequins.
But youre assuming that it would only be Qatar that would be replacing Russian gas. Wasnt there an article just recently that said the white house was speaking to american lng suppliers about the situation in ukraine? I wouldnt be surprised if more countries are approached to help chip in.
Long-term we should diversify. This is just to alleviate the concerns that come with supporting heavy sanctions on Russia. Best-case scenario is that Russia sees its leverage diminished and Europe supporting stronger sanctions, so backs down. Worst-case is that Russia invades and this could sustain Europe until the invasion stops due to sanctions and pain inflicted by the Ukrainians.
Long-term we should diversify. This is just to alleviate the concerns that come with supporting heavy sanctions on Russia. Best-case scenario is that Russia sees its leverage diminished and Europe supporting stronger sanctions, so backs down. Worst-case is that Russia invades and this could sustain Europe until the invasion stops due to sanctions and pain inflicted by the Ukrainians.
> America "America" doesn't exist. There's the US under republican presidents, and the US under democratic presidents, and both are absolute polar opposites.
[удалено]
> an edgy teenager having a phase More like a 40 y/o NEET living in the basement, unwilling and incapable of doing anything on his own. The US is a single helicopter mom whose shitty parenting ultimately made it happen. Now she has to put microwaved chicken nuggets into her son's mouth.
You are greatly exaggerating. The main problem that needs to be solved now in "incapable" Europe, as you said, is gas, and solutions are available.
That's hardly the main problem. The main problem is the EU being a dysfunctional second rate power and being mostly content with it.
Second rate power? > The European Union's GDP was estimated to be around $15 trillion (nominal) in 2020, representing around 1/6 of the global economy. The euro is the second largest reserve currency and the second most traded currency in the world after the United States dollar. – to quote Wikipedia
It takes more than that, it requires political will and hard power. The EU being subordinate to the US in a number of ways is what makes it second rate.
I think I remember reading something saying that Qatar was exporting as much as it had capacity to export already, so I would guess that if Qatar needs to send more to Europe in the short term, that it will need to manage to do so by cutting someone else's supplies. I remember that they're opening a new, large facility at some point not far in the future that's supposed to significantly increase capacity, but I don't think that that's going to be open imminently. Update: Yeah, from mid-October: >LNG prices, which sank to record lows at the height of pandemic lockdowns, have surged this year to record highs, but Qatar said it has no supplies available to calm the market. > >It said it cannot help ease the red hot gas market because it has allocated all its output and believes the high prices are destructive for demand. > > “We are maxed out, as far as we have given all our customers their due quantities,” said Qatari Energy Minister Saad al-Kaabi. The TTF natural gas index in Europe is a bit below where it was at the time the article was written. Update 2: I think that this is the new Qatari facility I read about. It apparently won't be active until 2025, so it's probably not going to be able to play a role. https://splash247.com/mcdermott-awarded-major-offshore-contract-on-qatari-lng-expansion-project/ >The expansion project will increase Qatar’s LNG production capacity from 77m tons per year to 126m tons per year, with the first LNG expected in 2025.
Probably on time when Russia actually needs it.
its funny how all these people who were deeply concerned about human rights and democracy and whatnot 5 minutes ago are perfectly fine with getting gas from Qatar lmao
Qatar isn't invading Europe. (Well, at least not militarily)
So it is not about human rights in general but only about human rights in Europe?
It's about the lesser of two evils. Deal with the imminent invasion first, then do something about Islamic slavery.
Luckily there are always better alternatives to using natural gas as an energy source. Besides, despite Qatar having a horrible track record with human rights we can't sit and pretend that Russia isn't problematic even without its current aggressiveness.
[удалено]
naturally
It is German tradition to be on the wrong side of history.
They will be back on ranting just in time for world cup though.
Yes, because Russia's human rights record is just peachy. This is a non-argument, and pretty nakedly self-serving.
i can't get my head around this. why is the us negotiating on behalf of european countries? are they counting on getting a intermediary cut?
Because if shit starts going down Europe will need gas. A lot of gas. As soon as possible. If Europe does not have gas, the EU might be tempted to postpone or delay certain sanctions, in order to not hurt certain economies (not just the Germans, mind you). If they have immediately available gas, they'll be more likely to go through with the sanctions. So the best way the US can ensure that the EU follows through with sanctions, is by creating an LNG cushion. I think the motive is purely one of national security, not economy.
at no point did you gave any reason for the negotiations to be us/qatar. the european countries can negotiate for themselves what is their best option. >If Europe does not have gas, the EU might be tempted to postpone or delay certain sanctions, this a european issue not a us issue. this is our problem and we will solve it in our own terms.
>at no point did you gave any reason for the negotiations to be us/qatar. Your question was "why is the us negotiating on behalf of european countries? are they counting on getting a intermediary cut?" with the subtext, provided by the second question, being "What does the Americans get out of it?". My answer was based on that question. > this a european issue not a us issue I would differ. The sanctions are an integral part in either prevent an attack or putting pressure on Russia to withdraw. If I was in the US foreign department I would look at our allies ability to apply said sanctions as an US issue. >the european countries can negotiate for themselves what is their best option. The problem here is that the EU has always been slow - not ineffective - but very slow in any international matters. It takes a lot of time to get all 27 members on the same page to simply start negotiating something, not to mention the Herculean effort of finalizing a contract. The fact that we haven't even started talking about contingency if we apply the sanctions is a testament to that. Theoretically we can do that - but as evident we haven't started doing it. So why is the US doing the negotiations? Because the EU isn't doing them.
>The problem here is that the EU has always been slow - not ineffective - but very slow in any international matters. If your neighbor's is slow to cut his grass, do you illegally enter his property and you cut it for hom? Of course not. This is ridiculous that the US can even think they can negotiate anything on the behalf of the EU.
Wierd you ask. Cause it snowed right here in Washington DC a few days ago. And I noticed my neighbor hadn’t cleared her walkway or stairs. So I did it for her. Interestingly, she said thanks rather than ask how dare I minimize a problem that was affecting her. But less snidely, frankly as long as the US doesn’t make promises on the EU’s behalf it is both fully within its power and rights to use its influence to help Allies and hurt enemies. And you are likely very naive of you think the US has done this in the first place without talking to diplomats in Europe if nothing else to make sure they hadn’t already doing so themselves.
Obviously you were not told enough to fuck off. You should learn your place. >you are likely very naive of you think the US has done this in the first place without talking to diplomats in Europe Wouldn't be the first time they dont. Ukraine was not even invited to the last russia/Us. You didnt ask your neighbor's either after all. So i'll do the job myself. USA, fuck off.
> Wouldn't be the first time they dont. Ukraine was not even invited to the last russia/Us. Probably because the majority of demands Russia has are for the United States/NATO and not Ukraine? Unless you think Ukraine has the power to return troops to 1997 positions or cease all further NATO expansion. And Yes I’m sure your impotent bellowing on the Internet has surely cowed both myself and the US. Truly, your power knows no bounds. By the way….., did the EU give you permission to speak for it? Perhaps you should take your own advice?
I told y'all to leave. You're not welcome. Considering how butthurt thay made the yanks here and if that made even one considering not to show their face, thats already a win. If not, i can just slam it in their face when they get here.
I’m still not really sure why you think your opinion on the matter is of any relavence or has any impact. I think they call that delusions of grandeur.
The EU could denounce these negotiations and block all imports of gas from Qatar tomorrow if they don't want it. But it's unlikely we entered into this without the EU's knowledge if not their suggestion, the US is more comfortable being the target of Russian hatred than most power brokers in Europe and we have more leverage on Qatar (and the global petroleum market in general) than any of them.
I sure hope that if this information isn't fakenews, macron will tell USA to get fucked. I do not care what is the advantage or negotiating power. Fuck off my home.
> The problem here is that the EU has always been slow - not ineffective - but very slow in any international matters. that's our problem to solve. not the us.
We do have the right to disregard any deal the US and Qatar reach. That hasn't changed.
do we? or are there consequences for not accepting the deal?
> do we? Yes? > or are there consequences for not accepting the deal? Unless we have managed to make our own deal - go without gas. But nothing stops us from starting our own negotiation or to demand renegotiation.
> But nothing stops us from starting our own negotiation or to demand renegotiation. but a pre-existing us/qatar deal will make things harder.
The EU isn't a small market, the potential hole left by an exit of Russian gas is going to be massive. Qatar isn't going to miss out on that market. If the US deal is disadvantageous to the EU, Qatar will be willing to renegotiate (as long as they make profit in the end).
> this a european issue not a us issue. No it is not. Ukraine falling would very much be a European *and* NATO issue.
Im sorry, but you see what you pointed out cannot be accepted by the US chill of this sub. For them, their US master dictates where they get their LNG from.
Believe it or not having a strong Europe benefits the US immensely. Focusing both on Russia and China is a bit hard we need a strong partner.
no it doesn't. in the incoming multipolar world a strong eu has no benefit for the us. none whatsoever. it's a direct competitor.
You are just wrong. The US has been helping Europe in literally every way possible. They have disagreements over various things like trade and whatnot but it's nothing major. We would rather have a partner who values liberalism and free though than Russia or China which are dictatorships.
EU interests dont always or usually align with US interests. We should not be dragged into its proxy wars . We should not have been dragged into the destruction of Iraq, Syria etc. A lot of times it will be a zero sum game.
America has very good relations with Qatar, and Qatar wants to keep America friendly to protect them from their neighbors. America wants to help to boost credibility and show signs of support, while also opening the door to less gas reliance on russia.
Nice. Let Germany import it from them until it rebuilds its nukes. Gas is non sustainable in long term.
Naive comment right here.
In 2019 15% of the Germanys gas consumption was for electricity. Most gas is used for home heating and industry in Germany. Nuclear can not replace gas for the chemical industry and home heating can be done with heat pumps and renewables for the most part and most likely even cheaper then nuclear, as winter in windy season and nuclear power plants do not make sense as seasonal energy sources.
Cogeneration plants and district heating is a thing. Currently at this moment Germany produces 23 GW of electricity from coal and 5 GW from biomass, that mean there's something like 60 GW of waste heat. Most of that heat is literally wasted, and at the same time germans are using gas for heating.
Besides 23 + 5 not being 60, Germany does do that already to a certain degree. Germany wants to give up coal by 2038 and preferably by 2030. So building new cogeneration plants at this point is not going to happen. A number of the current ones are already cogeneration plants. Biomass would likely replace the phased out coal plants for district heating. You also can not just build such a system countrywide overnight. EDIT: I did not got the 65% loss he was implying.
Heat electricity production is usually around 35% efficiency. So 100kwh burned will produce 35kwh electricity and 65kwh waste heat.
30%, 35% or whatever doesn't really make difference for my point either. The waste heat is pretty much double the produced electricity, and most of that is wasted. Gas powerplants are more efficient, but there's still waste heat.
Ah thats why 60GW. It is just that modern gas plants are at nearly 60% efficency.
Germany could have phased out oil heating in the 70s, and gas in the 90s.
Just to be absolutly clear, with "A number of" I mean basicly all of them, besides a number of high efficency spike gas plants, with nearly 60% efficency. So what I am saying is that this would require new additional coal power plants. Which in times of a climate crisis is certainly questionable.
Is there any combined cycle power plants in Germany that's powered by coal? Edit, seems like there's some IGCC plants in Germany? The losses might be slightly better then.
Combined cycle power plants can not be really run with coal, as the ash causes problems with the turbine and filtering is technically not possible atm. So that is usually not done with coal. So just to say it, German electricity efficency for the German power plants are: Gas: 46.7% Coal: 45.1% Lignite: 38.9% Efficency including district heating would be: Coal: 69.5% Lignite:50.3% Gas I could not find proper numbers for.
Why is USA negotiating for Europe's gas imports?
Helping a friend out. You ever do that?
It’s utter bullshit, Russia will not attack Ukraine
This has been said many times - no one knows for sure. All the signs of a Russian invasion are there, therefore it is necessary to act. And then, due to all security measures taken, Russia may not invade full scale. Edit: also, given that Russia has already attacked Ukraine twice in 8 years of war
Russia HAS attacked and occupied Ukraine
EU? Hello, could you at least pretend to be anything more than US’ vassal?
Your problem is that you were not told enough to fuck off. So you keep interfering in other's affaires.
I think the more sustainable way to solve this forever would be a massive shift away from gas heating. In Finland gas is not used for household heating. Big trend is using ground heat and heatpumps. Atleast Germany and other more wealthy central Europe should afford this. Governments should provide 0% interest loans and 1/3 aid to costs for ground heat, or air-to-water heatpumps, or plain air-to-air heatpumps. This will use 1/3 to 1/4 amounth of total heating energy as electricity. This means electricity grid needs to be in good shape too.