As they did pretty much every year before that?
As they did pretty much every year before that?
You should look up their capacity and then compare it to Nord Stream I and Yamal-Europe.
I'll save you the search - it's 10/5.5 bcm per year vs 55 bcm per year and 33 bcm per year.
Somewhere around 2030, sure, Russia can be replaced.And as you can see here
https://www.lngindustry.com/special-...-gas-with-lng/
Russia is fucked in the long term.
Europe is f****d right now.
Mocking anyone's capacity after seeing the fuckup that their invasion was in Ukraine is rich coming from russians.
I mean, isn't the world implementing it right now? The sanctions, the diplomatic ostracism, supporting Ukraine with weapons, money, outsourced soldiers and refugee help. Those are all valid alternatives to big dick nuke measuring contest, which has ran its course years ago. Yes, there are hiccups and long-term issues that need to be addressed, but it's way better than, I don't know, letting a barbaric country conquer anything around it.

I'm playing the compromise game your way. I make outrageous demand, and you "compromise" with me by meeting it halfway.
It's also the Republican 'rather be Russian than Democrat' way of "compromise". So I'll play it with your sorts. Give me half of my demand as mutual compromise, or it's all of it.
Well, as much as I hate to admit it, Shalcker has a point in that compromise is difficult. Of course, I see the biggest obstacle to compromise being that Russia believes that it's perfectly normal to lie and break agreements, treaties and Geneva conventions when it is convenient for them, so of course they expect the rest of the world to act in the same way. That's never going to be a solid foundation for compromise.
They are also historically proven to be utterly incapable of affecting course of ongoing war - and/or "regime change" even over long term.
I disagree; i think you create more misery and no benefits by clinging to sanctions.Yes, there are hiccups and long-term issues that need to be addressed, but it's way better than, I don't know, letting a barbaric country conquer anything around it.
Because "barbaric countries" will still conquer what they set out to conquer, and you'll be left with pain from sanctions and nothing to show for it.
- - - Updated - - -
I'm letting you keep Eastern Europe armies, clearly that should be enough.
I'm seeing EU and US set fire on economic system they painstakingly built over 30+ years - one that already was shaky after Covid - and saying "We have to light this fire because Russia will get singed".
It's frankly amazing how self-destructive and short-sighted modern Western elites can be.
I agree completely. Even if you would disregard the many war crimes and the horrible terror inflicted on the Ukrainian people, the simple truth is that Russia has shown that absolutely nothing they say can be trusted. There is no "compromise" possible that anyone in their right mind would be able to rely on.
You're misunderstanding something here.
Europe is slowly changing it's supplier, and in the mean time are still supplied. This means Europe will keep getting gas, but simply change who it's bought from.
Russia is loosing it's best customer, and at a much faster pace than it previous would have.
I'm sure it's hard to grasp, but you'd rather be the customer who takes his money and buys from someone else, than the shop losing it's best irreplacable customer.
Europe is not fucked now or in the long run, Russia will see a drop in sold volume, which will show this year, and be reduced over several years.

Tell you what, let's do that compromise. All of europes military gear and strenght on the eastern european, and thus Russian borders. Russian military equipment now behind the east side of Russian DMZ , which we agree is western half of Russia in size. As agreed, in return the western part of europe is DMZ aswell.