No shortage of fuel though, since they're having a hard time exporting it now. Although all industry in Russia is heavily dependent on spare parts from the West, meaning things will start breaking down quite soon.

Will this affect russia, of course, but if their level of inflation is rampant then so is the rest of the world.

Russia will likely deindustralise, but so will much of Europe, and even more so if Russia turned off the gas tomorrow. Remember this, russia could grind Europe to halt if it cut off the gas, which would be on top of an economic crisis that is already looking pretty bad. There is no alternative to the piped gas for Europe that's fact in any realistic time frame, no infrastructure plus the price would be at an extreme premium (piped gas is very cheap).

> and even more so if Russia turned off the gas tomorrow.

Energy exports are the only thing keeping the Russian currency afloat, unless they want to go into full autarky mode this would hurt them more than the west (i.e. 40% of all gas in Europe comes from Russia, which is huge 80-90% of all Russian exports are fossil fuels and metals and most go to Europe).

Also, Russia has already turned off the gas taps to Poland, Bulgaria and by the end of this week most likely to Finland. However, European countries can substitute (with varying degrees of pain), while it's physically impossible for Russia to export that gas elsewhere, meaning any cuts to exports hit them hard in the pocketbook.

At the end of the day, it's pretty much the world vs Russia right now, and the world will absorb the economic blows better than Russia can.

Recent data suggests that oil export holds fine and even increasing: https://www.ogj.com/general-interest/economics-markets/artic...

not coincidentally, they are also the only ones who can get "us" out of it, by withdrawing – the Ukrainian people have seen the rape, torture, and executions that result from allowing genocidal russian troops to control a single square foot of Ukrainian land, and have concluded that death is a better fate than that which awaits surrendering it

tl;dr you're going to have a hard time convincing Ukrainians to trust russia, but you are sure welcome to try

In my perspective, genocide is a very, very strong word. Hitler killed 6 million Jews, as he literally wanted them exterminated.

Now, crime is a crime, none should be defended nor downsized. But the primary goal behind that genocide was extermination. Do you claim that Russia is trying to exterminate Ukrainians? Or you are using it just to point out the war crimes that the Russian army is did?

From the (admittedly, rambling) speeches of their top command about how Ukraine is not a real country and intentional shelling of civilian structures, to mass murder of civilians being uncovered after russian forces are pushed back and abduction of children, there is no way you can call the goal of russian forces anything but extermination of a nation.

Of course, the official body count is not yet past 6 million, and UN paperwork calling it genocide is not yet signed. So yeah, you're right, it's not genocide, just murder on industrial scale.

For the sake of disclosure, I'm from Latvia, a country that shook off the russian yoke in 90s, and my own mother has chilling memories of red army acting the same animalistic way as what we hear from Ukraine today. "Bias" or "experience" - choose your own label.

- literally saying Ukraine should not exist

- saying Ukrainians aren't a real people, just russians

- planning to solve "The Ukraine Question" (yes, phrased by the Kremlin just as another dictator phrased "The Jewish Question")

- planning to end Ukraine as a country and split up the land between themselves and other countries (maps have even been found among russian forces in Ukraine illustrating this)

- mass executions to rid Ukrainian land of Ukrainians (see Bucha for just 1 example)

- mass shelling of civilian targets (homes, etc.) in cities to rid Ukrainian land of Ukrainians

- destroying and stealing grain from Ukraine to starve Ukrainians (russia has a history of doing this in Ukraine, see: Holodomor)

- refusing and attacking international food aid, mefical aid, and rescue to Ukrainian civilians

- announcing Ukrainians who fled the fighting will have their property and homes given to pro-russian fighters in territory russia controls

- shooting and shelling civilians who try to evacuate

- sending Ukrainians in areas russia controls to "filtration camps" where those who show support for Ukraine are executed or forcibly deported to russia or russian controlled land

- destroying Ukrainian cultural landmarks

- forcing Ukrainians in russian controlled territory to not speak Ukrainian

the list goes longer, but russia has not at all tried to hide it, simply watch what the state propagandists and putin himself say and have said of Ukraine as a sovereign state

Maybe time will tell that, despite your anger, You are right. But I sure pray to God that You are not, and that it hasn't/won't come to that.

The post actually does not contain anger, and is a well researched list of things russia actually has done and is doing.

As well, since they are facts, and not emotion, and since those facts together (even 2 or 3 of them alone, much less all of them taken together) constitute genocide, my own rightness or wrongness is irrelevant to the fact that russia is engaging in genocide.

Though Ukrainians are no doubt thankful of prayers for them in the face of russia's genocide, and your sympathy for them is no doubt appreciated, so thank you <3

If you want to stop the russians then declare war don't sit on the side lines trying to manipulate from a safe distance using the likes of sanctions or arming militias that we once all agreed were actual German Nazi evangelists, look at the iconography it's not even in doubt.

It's not hard to convince populations to do any thing, the pandemic should have taught us all that.

Edit: For the record i'm not justifying or demonising either side, do what you got to do, but know that i don't buy any holier than thou BS from either side. But put your money where your mouth is, if Russia must be stop do then do it, declare war or park a carrier group or two in the black sea, enforce no flyzones or guarantee shipping.

1. Millions protested against all the invasions by various countries.

2. Because they protested, but were ignored they can't be against this one also?

No one is falling for your whataboutism. It is terrible when counties invade others regardless of who is doing the invasion.

Stop being such a terrible sock-puppet.

I have protested the Tories, and I have always voted against them because I know they are bad people.

I know that the majority of people in the UK have also voted against them and their policies. Your entire point is completely nonsensical.

Where on earth did I do "whataboutism"? You literally said that people cannot be against one invasion because someone else invaded, which they were probably against as well.

this is not the U.S. opposing russia, but the world - literally the majority of all countries

the rest of your post is whataboutism that fails to justify russia's genocidal war of territorial conquest against Ukraine and Ukrainians, both of which russia believes should not exist, period

the world hears russia's farcical pretexts of "denazification" and recognizes it as a cynical ploy to preempt the obvious comparison of russia to the last country which attempted a genocidal war of territorial conquest in Europe

if you want to stop russia's genocidal war of territorial conquest in Ukraine, speak out against russia's genocidal war of territorial conquest in Ukraine

as for international aid to Ukraine, lethal and not, that is what the Ukrainian people ask for, and no amount of russian whinging and concern trolling allegedly on their behalf, or ridiculous "come at me bro"-esque macho encouragement for more countries to formally declare war, will prevent the world from answering their pleas against russia's genocidal war of territorial conquest

>Edit: For the record i'm not justifying or demonising either side

Edit: yes, that is the problem. one side is perpetrating a genocide, the other a victim of it. As Desmond Tutu said, "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor". That is your choice here.

Because we are dependent on it and despite opposition to Russia's war, our solidarity has limits. Limits which are a subject to internal debate and strive. Obviously you know this, which explains the other posters incredulity at the question, which is bound to be in bad faith.

If they're so together why did Turkey block Sweden and Finland joining Nato.

Probably because they see a way to get something they want. Probably not as a gesture towards Russia, since their own contribution to the war -- e.g. closing off the Black sea has been pretty effective.

That's more like flexabiledarity than solidarity.

Are you asking this in good faith, as in, you do not know, and wish to learn?

Or did you mean to say, "I think that a majority of countries are not united in opposition to russia, and I submit as evidence that russian energy sales are not zero" ?

or "explain", as in you think the majority of countries are not united in opposition to russia, and you would like to advance this claim?

I want to be clear here, I am all for sharing knowledge, so if you need an explanation because you don't know, and don't just plan to argue, please say so and I will share all I can, what little it may be

This is not the same question as how it helps Ukraine, so I would be careful throwing around the word “misdirection”.

And we are now how deep in this thread without an answer to the simple question; how can a lack of EU energy embargo stand in solidarity with the sanctions and Ukraine. Please explain?

I'll go for it though, and address the original question, which was 'If everyone is so united in opposition why are they still buying the oil and gas (paying in Rubles)?', although you've rephrased it as 'please explain to me how all the European countries that are so united in solidatary with Ukraine can square the round hole of also paying Russia vast sums of money for energy?', and somewhat differently asked 'I don't know how paying Russia helps Ukraine, or are they not paying for energy?'

First off, I don't think anyone would argue that this in any way helps Ukraine. Of course, paying money to Russia is not going to help Ukraine. However, Europe has been dependent on Russian oil and gas for a long time, and it is not simple to just cut that off. 40% of gas supplied to the EU comes from Russia, and almost 30% of the EU's oil.

Second, I don't think anyone anticipated that this war would last longer than a month or two. I think the expectation from the EU's side was an overwhelming show of force from Russia, regime change in Ukraine, and a quick end to hostilities. Although the EU started discussing longer term moves away from Russian gas and oil at that point, I don't think there was a sense that this could have any short term impact in terms of supporting Ukraine (or cutting off indirect support for Russia). The EU, known for being slow to react and full of bureaucracy, was able to publish a plan on 8th March, less than two weeks after the invasion. The plan is very aggressive, and targets reducing imports from Russia by two-thirds within one year. This is a major economic blow to Russia, and likely was intended to scare Russia into changing their approach in Ukraine, unsuccessfully.

Third, just stopping paying for this fuel would likely be in breach of commercial agreements. Russia and Ukraine have been at war since 2014, and the EU has not stopped paying for gas. There are legal implications to not upholding your side of a contract, although I doubt that this is a serious consideration - likely this could be thrashed out quickly.

Fourth, if we stop paying, Russia would then cease supplying oil and gas to the EU. There are a number of reasons this would be problematic. First of all, the distribution systems we currently have need to be pressurised (this is not technically quite accurate, but it's a close enough analogy I don't think it's important to get into the details). If Russia stopped supplying gas and oil to the EU, there is an overhead for the EU to keep these pipelines pressurised to avoid the whole system collapsing. So additionally to losing 20-30% of Europe's fuel supply, Europe would additionally need to divert supplies to the network rather than it being available for use by users. I wasn't able to find details on the amount of technical gas consumed by the EU and what the gap would be, but during the previous fuel crisis, the gap for gas alone was 21 million cubic metres per day, which represents 2% of the EU's total daily consumption.

Fifth, the EU is struggling with economic challenges same as the rest of the world. We have high inflation, Cost of Living is going up faster than salaries. Reducing energy supply would necessitate massive price increases on fuel bills, which is currently being seen in the UK and very poorly received. As this war seems to be settling in to become a long, drawn out conflict.

Finally (at least for this comment), from a military strategy point of view, cutting off this income now would give Russia the opportunity to develop other income streams while operating on their reserves. Waiting until Russia is deep in an economic crisis, and has burned through their war chest before cutting off their cashflow is likely to lead to more acute hardship and be a stronger bargaining chip. I'm sure Russia are currently considering this as well, but there will be a 'sweet spot', before Russia are able to develop other income streams.

this is not misdirection, it's giving you the opportunity to show your questions are being asked _in_good_faith_, because I don't see a point to answering a bad faith question

you've had two opportunities to do so, and both times chosen not to simply say that your objective is learning, rather than arguing. instead, you extremely conspicuously chose to deflect from such a clarification

in my experience, when someone is hiding and actively avoiding clarifying their objective in a discussion, it is because their objective in the discussion is not clarity.

tl;dr: you say you want an answer to your question, but if you think you already know the answer, then your question doesn't need another one,

and if you DON'T think you already know, it should be easy for you to just say that, and that you don't intend to argue with whoever would teach you the answer