I don't particularly think Sri Lanka or Ethiopia particularly gives a shit about Taiwan. — StreetlightX

Sure, but Taiwan's shutdown of their semiconductor plant created a worldwide shortage, so an invasion before the west has been able to build up new factories will be a shutdown on the entire world of tech. And even if we get other factories up and running, we still need that factory to be able to fight the shortage. The fallout of that factory being hit, shut down again or anything like that would be extreme for the entire world, far more than any oil and gas from Russia. It takes years to build new factories and the one in Taiwan is one, if not the most advanced in the world. Russia has nothing even remotely close to that level of importance globally.

Frankly, anyone hyperventilating about Ukraine but not having a word to say about Israeli apartheid or Yemeni genocide simply does not deserve to speak, ever. — StreetlightX

I have plenty to say about that. I never understood that kind of argument though... that because we talk about one conflict or problem of the world, we "ignore" others. At the moment, the crisis is in Ukraine and with Russia's, or rather, Putin's threat of nuclear launches. When this crisis has been resolved or turned to more stability, there's plenty of time to continue working to fix everything else that's broken on this planet.

I think you should check that again. — Christoffer

I did check it, a lot... renewables just will not work on the scale needed. And even if they would, you'd need huge swats of land for it which would be an ecological disaster on it's own. Nevermind the waste afterwards, and the sheer amounts of resources needed to keep building them in large enough quantity...

And it doesn't matter, it has to be done anyway, whatever people think about it or however hard it hits the economy, it has to be done in order to decrease the rate of climate change. — Christoffer

We need to do whatever is the least worst, which is not as clear-cut as one might think ;-)

On top of that, since the investment in improvements of renewables has skyrocketed in a very short period of time, all while we just recently had a major step forward for fusion energy, which changed the projected time-frame for when we might solve that problem. If nothing else we also have Thorium nuclear power with power plant designs that can utilize nuclear waste almost until they're half-lifed to irrelevant levels before storage. — Christoffer

From what I've gleaned, renewables can only be part of mix at best, fusion is still 50 years into the future even with recent improvements, and the new type of nuclear reactors are not entirely ready to be used either. Anyway I agree that nuclear is the way to go, but this is not something that can get done in the the time-frame needed to stop climate change.

My point is that we NEED to have a push towards other solutions than gas and oil and we just got this with moving away from Russia's export of it. So while people can take the pain that creates as a sign of support towards Ukraine, that kind of pain could never be endured just on the basis of "we need to do this for the environment". People don't care about the environment, they care about people suffering. We can argue this is because they're stupid and don't connect the dots of how the environment create suffering, but the fact is that we hit a lot of flies in one hit at the moment. We can weaken Russia's hold on the west, remove their trading diplomacy cards so we don't have to be puppets of the oligarchs and Putin's ego, all while pushing the necessary push towards better solutions than oil and gas. Even if we don't go renewable soon, just build Thorium power plants. I feel like people don't know how safe these designs really are, it's way better than any other solution at the moment until renewable match up with it. — Christoffer

My point is that tanking the economy is probably never a push towards other solutions, because as you scramble to stay afloat, the last thing you want to do is make big investments in future-oriented transitions.

I agree on nuclear, if they are ready, but you need large coordinated investment for that. They are the future, but if you're too busy trying to put out fires left and right, you typically don't think about the far future.

It takes years to build new factories and the one in Taiwan is one, if not the most advanced in the world. Russia has nothing even remotely close to that level of importance globally. — Christoffer

China has years. Look, I'm just saying, this isn't some internet RPG where people get to takes sides in some kind of black and white manner. The assumption that making Russia (more) of a pariah state will automatically translate into more support for the West is very wrong. And it is good that it is wrong.

At the moment, the crisis is in Ukraine and with Russia's, — Christoffer

At the moment, the crisis is also in Yemen and Israel. It just so happens that Ukraine aligns with Western interests to make this the cause du jour. And the idea that when or if this crisis 'ends', the West will give a shit about Yemen or Israel is laughable.

--

Anyway, back to the original point - one interesting thing about cutting off Russian oil and gas - whoever does it first, if it happens at all - is that it is likely to stir up further reactionary movements in Europe, which is already having a nice little fascist/populist revival. Living conditions falling as they are - thanks to the Euro - a price hike will hit the working class first and foremost as the price of living will shoot up considerably (more). As it stands the people who stand to benefit from this are nationalist identitarians everywhere, and it's not clear that the neoliberal elites of Europe will be willing to pay that price. And this to say nothing about the new wave of refugees that is about to hit Europe, already having a 'migrant crisis'. Or ordinary Russians who will also pay the price of Western sanctions. Again, it's more complicated than 'punish Russia because Putin is bad-man'.

At the moment, the crisis is in Ukraine and with Russia's, or rather, Putin's threat of nuclear launches. — Christoffer

So explain to me the advantage in exculpating the role of the US and Europe in catalysing this crisis? Russia is the main instigator, right. I think we agree. But that's not enough for you. All talk of the US and Europe's involvement must be exorcised. All blame must be placed on Putin, the madman who must be stopped at all costs. What gain does this polarisation serve?

When this crisis has been resolved or turned to more stability, there's plenty of time to continue working to fix everything else that's broken on this planet. — Christoffer

Really? "Plenty of time". Have you noticed any kind of trend in crises over the last few years? Was there "plenty of time" between Covid and Ukraine to discuss toxic American foreign policy? Was there "plenty of time" between the Islamic terror threat and Covid? Was there "Plenty of time" between Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and the rise of Islamic terrorism? When was the last crisis-free moment in which we all took a dispassionate look at American foreign policy without the threat of a world-shattering crisis to ensure naysayers can be painted as reckless fools willing to risk global annihilation?

Today it's Russia, yesterday it was Islamic terrorism, before that Saddam Hussein, Colonel Gaddafi... The existential threats painted as justifications for economic imperialism are an unbroken line in which Russia is just the latest.

Anyway, back to the original point - one interesting thing about cutting off Russian oil and gas - whoever does it first, if it happens at all - is that it is likely to stir up further reactionary movements in Europe, which is already having a nice little fascist/populist revival. Living conditions falling as they are - thanks to the Euro - a price hike will hit the working class first and foremost as the price of living will shoot up considerably (more). As it stands the people who stand to benefit from this are nationalist identitarians everywhere, and it's not clear that the neoliberal elites of Europe will be willing to pay that price. And this to say nothing about the new wave of refugees that is about to hit Europe, already having a 'migrant crisis'. Or ordinary Russians who will also pay the price of Western sanctions. Again, it's more complicated than 'punish Russia because Putin is bad-man'. — StreetlightX

The sanctions stuff is really complex. The original sanctions were typically toothless but the Putin-as-Bond-movie-villian narrative is dominant across social media and Western politicians are being tempted to weigh social brownie points over bigger picture considerations. That may or may not turn out OK, but it is dangerous, I agree.

and the new type of nuclear reactors are not entirely ready to be used either. — ChatteringMonkey

We've had the technology for many decades. The only reason it's not fleshed out is because there wasn't any weapon capability as a byproduct. You know, if you have a normal nuclear power plant, you could use some of the nuclear matter used for nuclear weapons as a side gig. Thorium is too good for bad nations.

But I know Finland has been looking at it. There's a growing interest in it as the need for nuclear power still needs to meet the risks they have.

fusion is still 50 years into the future even with recent improvements — ChatteringMonkey

Not really, the recent improvements are recent, as in... like two-three weeks ago. Timeline hasn't been updated since they're still evaluating the data. But the timeline is always based on predicted development. Predicted development never takes into account fluke accident major breakthroughs. But I agree that fusion is nothing we can rely on as a solution yet, I'm just saying it's closer than people realize. And the will to solve it is huge, throwing money on solving it is a priority, especially if one nation solves it and starts exporting power, that nation will be filthy rich.

My point is that tanking the economy is probably never a push towards other solutions, because as you scramble to stay afloat, the last thing you want to do is make big investments in future-oriented transitions. — ChatteringMonkey

It's a push in that it demands another solution. And "scramble" to stay afloat is not really true. An economic crisis may look like the one in 2008, but did that "scramble to stay afloat"? There's still plenty of capital to invest in new solutions, it's just that the financial world always need to balance the entire economy so as to not break regular folks. However, since regular folks seem to not care about climate change and politicians are not willing to do what it takes, a crisis that pushes everyone out of their comfort zone will lead to hard times in the short terms, but better times after a few years. Also remember the jobs that gets created by investing in new technologies.

I agree on nuclear, if they are ready, but you need large coordinated investment for that. — ChatteringMonkey

And this is what I think gets pushed when we can't rely on oil and gas. People feel the ground shake under them and they will start investing much quicker.

Just think of the semi-conductor shortage. Because everyone was just in their comfort zone ordering chips from Taiwan, no one cared for what a shutdown would look like or mean to the world. Only after the crisis did both EU and Intel start expanding into new factories to be able to cover future needs.

Crisis always leads to some type of opportunity.

China has years. Look, I'm just saying, this isn't some internet RPG where people get to takes sides in some kind of black and white manner. The assumption that making Russia (more) of a pariah state will automatically translate into more support for the West is very wrong. And it is good that it is wrong. — StreetlightX

I'm not saying it isn't complicated. Since everything is speculation, it ends up being very broad strokes.

At the moment, the crisis is also in Yemen and Israel. It just so happens that Ukraine aligns with Western interests to make this the cause du jour. And the idea that when or if this crisis 'ends', the West will give a shit about Yemen or Israel is laughable. — StreetlightX

No, it just happens to be that this is a large invasion by a superpower that could lead to extreme consequences for the entire world. Especially when Putin threatens with nuclear strikes. As I've mentioned, I don't think people realize what is really going on here. For example, I've been debating against Israel's actions against Palestinians for years now, but that conflict is a decades-long crisis that while it needs to have the focus of the world, it doesn't change the fact of the immediate crisis of what is going on at the moment and the severity of it.

I really don't understand when arguments boil down to "yeah, but what about everything else that's going on?" In my opinion, that's not really a valuable way of dealing with all of this. We could very well be discussing the Israel/Palestinian conflict and the argument "but what about Ukraine" would pop up.

That the west doesn't give a shit about any of it is just a blanket statement. "The west" is a lot of nations. Sweden for instance, has a lot of support for Palestinians. So, if one nation of "the west" doesn't give a shit, that doesn't mean another nation does the same.

a price hike will hit the working class first and foremost as the price of living will shoot up considerably (more). As it stands the people who stand to benefit from this are nationalist identitarians everywhere, and it's not clear that the neoliberal elites of Europe will be willing to pay that price. And this to say nothing about the new wave of refugees that is about to hit Europe, already having a 'migrant crisis'. — StreetlightX

Depends, many of the fascist parties have also been taken into the normality of parliament, which means many of them are now showing how incompetent they actually are with normal day-to-day politics. In Sweden, we have former neo-nazi fascists as the third-largest party in parliament playing innocent politicians and since they've grown so large, people demand them to solve normal problems, which they can't because they are fundamentally incompetent. And the migrant crisis isn't the same this time around since more nations are willing to take on more migrants so it spreads more than before where Sweden, for example, took in a much larger portion than most others.

So the complexity doesn't end just with risks with increased fascism, there are also movements against it. A lot of movements also relied on Russian propaganda machines helping them to rise up, that's not gonna happen in the same way after this.

All blame must be placed on Putin, the madman who must be stopped at all costs. What gain does this polarisation serve? — Isaac

You have continued to push this argument while people have answered you many times. Here's the thing, there are nations who are independent nations that were previously part of the "Russian empire" and Soviet. Putin want these nations back, because he is a delusional fucker who wants to be a Tsar in the glorious Russian empire. Since most others realize that Russia keeps getting these morons in power, most nations that were part of the Soviet Union, but are now independent nations, just want to be left alone, to be their own nation. Putin doesn't own these people or nations, even if he thinks he does. So these nations ask to be part of NATO in order to have a good defense against the risk of being invaded and claimed by a delusional despot. Some nations have much less balls, like Belarus, who bend down for Putin instead. So the choices for these nations are either to join NATO, bend down for Putin or get invaded and killed. Ukraine thought too long about joining NATO and they won't bend down for Putin, so they get invaded. Also, NATO isn't US. US is a part of NATO, but NATO is an alliance, there are many nations within NATO. But in your mind that just means they are "brainwashed" by US. The thing is that the US might very well have economical imperial interests through NATO, but that is not the collective mindset of NATO.

So, yeah, this is all Putin. This is part of the Russian tradition of being assholes to whomever they think is their possession. To argue that "the west" pushed Putin to this is a fucking delusional point of view.

Today it's Russia, yesterday it was Islamic terrorism, before that Saddam Hussein, Colonel Gaddafi... The existential threats painted as justifications for economic imperialism are an unbroken line in which Russia is just the latest. — Isaac

You still don't know what is going on right now. What's the economic gain for Russia by invading Ukraine? Explain please

I really don't understand when arguments boil down to "yeah, but what about everything else that's going on?" — Christoffer

Because the opposite response - "let's just talk about Putin and nothing else" - is far, far stupider. Especially when that is, in fact, the dominant response. Doubly especially when your response to the threat of a rising fascism is "oh don't worry they'll implode on their own account". Which is of course, literal insanity. Much like fantasizing about Putin in the Hague.

That may or may not turn out OK, but it is dangerous, I agree. — Baden

Earlier this month the UK - land of populist Brexit - was already looking to provide government loans to cover energy bills in an out of control energy market. That was before any of this started, proper. Can European governments afford to drive up those prices further? Not even asking rhetorically, but as a genuine open question.

Oil and gold prices jump
Oh yes, this is another collateral effect we will suffer in the coming months. Russia (cleverly) always plays the same card. It is unbelievable. You cannot make a "great" economic impact against them if they still have the key of modern natural resources. What do you do without Gas and Oil in your State? Nothing...

Another interesting analysis: SWIFT Russian Ban could force FED to step in, Credit Suisse says

"let's just talk about Putin and nothing else" — StreetlightX

But this is not true. Right now we're in a thread about this conflict and of course, such events, especially in Europe create such media coverage because it's of huge consequence to Europe. It's also a huge economical consequence to the entire world.

It's like it becomes a competition or a kind of "equality of conflicts".

Doubly especially when your response to the threat of a rising fascism is "oh don't worry they'll implode on their own account". Which is of course, literal insanity. Much like fantasizing about Putin in the Hague. — StreetlightX

I didn't say it will implode on their own I said that it's not that black and white that fascism will surely rise more. You handle these things with the same level of simplicity as you try to criticize me for. If your only deduction of my response was that "don't worry about fascists they will just fizzle out on their own" you clearly just interpret what I write with the least amount of effort possible. Basically strawmanning.

You still don't know what is going on right now. What's the economic gain for Russia by invading Ukraine? Explain please — Christoffer

Survival? I mean everyone here seems to want a weak, diminished Russia without any say on the worldwide stage, maybe like Great Britain after it lost its colonies. Well at least it did not try to take them back. I am for the status quo (pre -2014) but no-one likes that.

It's also a huge economical consequence to the entire world. — Christoffer

Which apparently you are totally OK with exacerbating because Putin bad and fascism we can deal with later and China will be on the West's side and everything is peachy so long as we punish Russia. If there was even a modicum of 'equality of conflicts' that would in fact be nice.

I didn't say it will implode on their own — Christoffer

Oh? Tell me how to interpret this:

Depends, many of the fascist parties have also been taken into the normality of parliament, which means many of them are now showing how incompetent they actually are with normal day-to-day politics. In Sweden, we have former neo-nazi fascists as the third-largest party in parliament playing innocent politicians and since they've grown so large, people demand them to solve normal problems, which they can't because they are fundamentally incompetent. — Christoffer

Survival? I mean everyone here seems to want a weak, diminished Russia without any say on the worldwide stage, maybe like Great Britain after it lost its colonies. Well at least it did not try to take them back. I am for the status quo (pre -2014) but no-one likes that. — FreeEmotion

Survival? By taking Ukraine? In what way is that survival? Please explain what the actual threat is? All those nations, including Ukraine, want is to be their own nation. Putin and Russia is huge, no one has any interest in obliterating Russia, even many Russians themselves don't want any of this. So if it's not survival, what is it then? I really want some strong argument for the survival angle, like, actual threats to Russia's existence. And how they cannot exist in the normal nuclear superpower as it is right now.

I mean, if Putin wasn't a big bag of shit and if the nation wasn't built on propaganda, Russia would be a tremendous alliance partner and prospering nation in all sectors. How is this not just the fault of purely Putin and Russias corruption problems? Survival? In what way?

One last wish that Russia decline, apparently the West is fixated on this goal.

In recent years, the more dire prophesies of Russian collapse that circulated in the 1990s having gone unfulfilled, such characterizations have given way to a recognition that Russia is in fact a "persistent power." Fundamentally, though, nothing has changed. Whether rebranded as a mere "nuisance power" or as a perpetually "disruptive" power, Russia is viewed now as it has been since it emerged out of the wreckage of the Soviet Union in December 1991 - as a broken, if sometimes petulant, vestige of a once-mighty superpower.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/reports-of-russias-decline-are-greatly-exaggerated/ar-AAS9uCn?pfr=1

Which apparently you are totally OK with exacerbating because Putin bad and fascism we can deal with later — StreetlightX

He invaded a country, killing civilians right now as we speak, and threatens others with nuclear weapons. Case closed.

Are you saying that we should keep debating, keep just not doing anything, just let them suffer and die by Putin's hand until we've solved the fascism thing first. Seriously, sometimes I think people are unable to tackle a critical crisis where every minute counts.

What's your solution to all of this? How would you help Ukraine? How would you deal with something like nuclear weapon threats?

Oh? Tell me how to interpret this: — StreetlightX

As a balance to what you said? Not everything is a downright conclusion of factual end-point events.

Russia is viewed now as it has been since it emerged out of the wreckage of the Soviet Union in December 1991 - as a broken, if sometimes petulant, vestige of a once-mighty superpower.

Of course, because the corruption didn't disappear, because the despots didn't disappear, because the propaganda didn't disappear. If almost every parameter of the Soviet Union is still there, just with new clothes, how else would we view Russia? They've made no efforts to battle any of it, it's just a more open country to be able to play on the modern geopolitical and economical arena. Without that, it's going back to its roots once again, which is what some are speculating will happen now, Putin isolating Russia further from the world.

He invaded a country, killing civilians right now as we speak, and threatens others with nuclear weapons. Case closed. — Christoffer

Oh yes, case closed, Putin invaded a country so no critical thinking so what if power prices surge through the roof and fascism is given an accelerant and ordinary people everywhere are hurt; your bloodlust must be satisfied now.

Generally I imagine one deals with nuclear weapon threats by not poking a fucking nuclear weapon bear in the eye. That's just me though, real god damn radical I know.

Oh yes, case closed, Putin invaded a country so no critical thinking so what if power prices surge through the roof and fascism is given an accelerant and ordinary people everywhere are hurt; your bloodlust must be satisfied now. — StreetlightX

Who gives a shit about power prices increasing when people are getting killed in Ukraine? Increasing fascist movements is always a concern that is always being battled.

Nothing of that is any solution to the situation. How do we deal with what is going on in Ukraine? How do we help stop it? Or are you just ok with letting them be killed? Are you ok with the Wagner Group reportedly being in Ukraine for a month before the invasion preparing to kill the Ukraine president? Should just not give a shit about any of that? What's your fucking solution?

Generally I imagine one deals with nuclear weapon threats by not poking a fucking nuclear weapon bear in the eye. That's just me though. — StreetlightX

So bend down and get fucked. You're an inspiration to the world.

Who gives a shit about power prices increasing when people are getting killed in Ukraine? — Christoffer

Yeah gee, who gives a damn about continental crisis, how passe right? And who knows what the 'solution' is? Maybe part of the problem is wild bloodlusty agitators happy to crank up tensions with a nuclear power because they need to feel like they are 'doing something'. I know that it may come as a shock that the world is more complex than 'bad guy bad' and 'is good when good guy hurt bad guy' but that's kinda how things are.

You're an inspiration to the world. — Christoffer

One hopes there is a world left when tunnel-visioned hysterics like you are quite done with it.

. I know that it may come as a shock that the world is more complex than 'bad guy bad' and 'is good when good guy hurt bad guy' but that's kinda how things are. — StreetlightX

This is also true when the bad guy is the USA.

If Ukraine surrenders, surely less people will be killed, if stopping the killing is what you want.
You cannot at once assign Putin responsibility for starting the war and also being prevented from starting it. Stopping him has to be done by someone else.

How does that refusal to let Ukraine join NATO just so as not to 'upset Putin' now feel? You surely cannot place the responsibility on Putin for that.

Wars will be less frequent when citizens demand that nations conduct themselves in a manner that seeks peace. I am not sure if citizens are powerful enough right now, anywhere.

Well the US is an infinitely worse country than Russia on the world stage so I reckon there's more leeway in getting it to fuck right off forever.

Yeah gee, who gives a damn about continental crisis, how passe right? And who knows what the 'solution' is? Maybe part of the problem is wild bloodlusty agitators happy to crank up tensions with a nuclear power because they need to feel like they are 'doing something'. I know that it may come as a shock that the world is more complex than 'bad guy bad' and 'is good when good guy hurt bad guy' but that's kinda how things are. — StreetlightX

You mean that the actions "the west" is taking here are just "bloodlusty" agitations? Yeah, helping Ukraine defend themselves against murderers trying to claim their nation for themselves is "bloodlusty". And let's look at the Russian army of kids, not even sure why they're there. Cannon fodder for the grinder, yeah, don't do anything, don't try anything, don't make any effort to try and pressure Putin to back off.

This passive "solution" is really great, it really helps everyone! And after they've murdered the president, after they've killed all opposers, after all of it we can just lean back and switch on our Netflix binge and relax. I mean it was nothing, some civilians got killed, a nation was taken, the Russians are now stronger. Also, let Belarus get some nukes while we're at it, let him play with that as well. Who cares? As long as we don't risk fascism rising, we can never stop pushing that back, because we are unable to do many things at once. Yeah, no, let's just put up our feet, take a deep breath and just, smell that nice clean air of our own farts.

Give me a fucking break.

You mean that the actions "the west" is taking here are just "bloodlusty" agitations? Yeah, helping Ukraine defend themselves against murderers trying to claim their nation for themselves is "bloodlusty". And let's look at the Russian army of kids, not even sure why they're there. Cannon fodder for the grinder, yeah, don't do anything, don't try anything, don't make any effort to try and pressure Putin to back off. — Christoffer

And there it is - the Marvel comic book picture of international politics.

Well the US is an infinitely worse country than Russia on the world stage so I reckon there's more leeway in getting it to fuck right off forever. — StreetlightX

If you widen your time frame to a century, you'll find this really isn't true.

It's true because my time-frame is a century or so.

How does that refusal to let Ukraine join NATO just so as not to 'upset Putin' now feel? — FreeEmotion

Wouldn't that have let to war with every NATO member?

It's true because my time-frame is a century or so. — StreetlightX

Then you need to read a history of the USSR.