Gas prices - Where is gas still affordable?

I would like to know what is/was known to the Russian and American intelligence services that we are not informed about. My impression from the beginning was that something was/is going on in the background that is unknown to us but, in my view, would be important for assessing the situation. It may indeed be as simple as Russia being the aggressor; from my point of view, however, it cannot be ruled out that other "warmongers" are involved or have forced the situation. I lack the fundamental belief that we/the West are the "good guys," as the list of wars of aggression or provoked wars/war involvements led by "us" is too long... even though I am rather a naive person, I become suspicious when the side of the "good guys" benefits so clearly. Then the world should be a better place if the "good guys" benefit, i.e., the countries that (coincidentally?) make really big money from this or other war(s)... and have been doing so for a long time.

“Good”?
That has never been a real category in world politics; it is a marketing concept for world politics.

1) There are states in the world that, roughly speaking, want to adhere to a rules-based world order, with the rules internationally negotiated under the leadership of the USA.

2) Then there are states that primarily want to enforce their own interests through their own power and see wars as a means of enforcement.

The USA themselves demand a world as described in 1), but are also repeatedly willing to act as described in 2) when their own interests are too strongly affected. This, of course, partly hollowed out the legal views of the community of those committed to the rules-based world order.

Ukraine wanted/wants to belong to the states in 1), the neighbor Russia is a state from 2). Since at least 2014 there has already been a war because separatists want to secede the eastern Ukraine with violence, including armed force, and bring it to Russia. Ukraine itself also responded with violence to defeat the separatists.

Now there are hundreds of stories about who did what when and why to achieve what exactly. Each side portrays itself as “the good guys” in the stories they tell themselves. Marketing, basically.

The fact is that in January before the start of the current large conflict, Russian troops were set in motion, this was reported by the US intelligence service, and thus was also known to the European governments.

Then Russia invaded Ukraine; Putin referred to Article 51 of the UN Charter and thus presented a “special operation” aimed at protecting/rescuing the Russian-speaking separatists. One can now see how credible that is.
Ultimately, the invasion was a violation of any rules from 1), including those to which Russia had once promised to adhere. The world does not recognize the argument based on Article 51.
Russia is doing geopolitics according to 2) because it can. References to the USA doing exactly the same are, depending on perspective, either whataboutism or justified. The fact is that Russia, as the aggressor, attacked another state in Europe and we have to see if and how to respond. That is exactly what is happening, of course again peppered with all kinds of interests.

I am confused as to why "even" Ukraine is allowed to do business with Russia, but we are not.

Quite simple. Because the money Ukraine pays might be invested in weapons that harm them. The money Germany gives to Russia, as far as I know, is not invested in weapons that are used in Germany.

Ukraine wanted/wants to belong to the states in 1), the neighboring Russia is a state from 2). Since at least 2014, there has already been a war, because separatists would like to violently, including with weapons, secede the eastern Ukraine and join Russia. Ukraine itself also responded with violence to defeat the separatists.

Thank you for replying to . In my opinion, this point is important, as it is ammunition in the propaganda on both sides. Since 2014 there has been, "of course," considerable support from the USA to Ukraine based on their geostrategic considerations. Weapons and especially training and education. Unfortunately, the N*zis, such as the Azov regiment, also benefited from this, similar to Syria where all kinds of parties armed people with questionable intrinsic motivation to fight.

Despite this justified criticism, Russia has been the consistent aggressor in the region since 2014 and not the West. Relying on any assurances regarding NATO eastward expansion while simultaneously invading multiple countries directly/indirectly is hypocrisy at its finest. Whataboutism "but the USA" is no justification. If my neighbor commits a robbery and murder, that is no justification to do the same. Period.

Furthermore, it seems that the US leadership believed their intelligence information – the Eurozone always had the same knowledge but ignored it due to Schröder’s camaraderie. In retrospect, I am ashamed of Maas laughing at Trump’s UN speech. Gas as a pressure tool was always clearly named and ignored by us. That NS2 is completely irrelevant for European gas supply should by now be known to everyone. There is enough pipeline gas for all – with NS2 Putin would have only very nicely managed to split Europe.

Of course, the USA also wants to sell LNG and it would cost between 6-9 cents (from memory) and thus be more expensive than Russian gas, but our economic dependence on Russia is already shocking. There should be risk management in every industrial company where active countermeasures are taken against 100% dependence on suppliers. That such measures are not in place for free is crystal clear. That this has been completely ignored economically on a national level for decades is beyond me. No, 2nd source activities for e.g. LNG terminals were always prevented.

“Good“? That has never really been a category in world politics; it is a marketing concept for world politics.

1) There are states in the world that, broadly speaking, want to adhere to a rules-based world order, whereby the rules are internationally negotiated under the leadership of the USA.

2) Then there are states that primarily want to enforce their own interests through their own power and see wars as a means of enforcing such interests.

The USA itself advocates for a world like in 1), but they are also repeatedly willing to act like in 2) when their own interests are too strongly affected. This naturally partly hollowes out the legal views of the community of those who have committed themselves to the rules-based world order.

Ukraine wanted/wants to belong to the states in 1), the neighboring Russia is a state from 2). Since at least 2014 there has already been war, as separatists want to split off Eastern Ukraine and lead it to Russia, using violence, including armed violence. Ukraine itself responded with violence as well to defeat the separatists.

Now there are hundreds of stories about who did what when and why to achieve what exactly. Each side presents itself as “the good guys” in the stories they tell. Just marketing.

The fact is that in January before the start of the current major conflict, Russian troops were put into motion, this was reported by US intelligence and thus was also known to European governments.

Then Russia invaded Ukraine, Putin referred to Article 51 of the UN Charter and thus portrayed it as a “special operation” intended to protect/save the Russian-speaking separatists. Now one can see how credible that is. Ultimately, the invasion was a breach of rules of any kind from 1), including those Russia had once promised to adhere to. The world does not recognize the argument based on Article 51.

Russia makes geopolitics according to 2), because it can. References to the fact that the USA do exactly the same are, depending on perspective, either whataboutism or justified. The fact is that Russia, as the aggressor, attacked another state in Europe and one has to see whether and how to respond. That is exactly what is happening, of course again loaded with all kinds of interests.

A very apt summary, thank you.

Additionally, I would like to add that the one who fights to maintain their dominance exempts themselves at will from the sanctions and their enforcement, meaning they continue active trade whereas we have to sanction ourselves into oblivion. Evil tongues claim that this way two birds are killed with one stone ;-)

One question I ask myself in such matters is: Who benefits? Ukraine has been a playground for the "great powers" for quite a few years now. The "revolution" in Ukraine reportedly did not take place without the involvement of the USA. This morning I read an article stating that the USA would rather not look too closely at Ukraine because they do not want to see the grievances. Ukraine is the location of a current proxy war, this time right on our doorstep and not "far away." Morally, I see Europe's actions as correct, but in realpolitik terms, not. We have embarked on sanctions that cost us more than Russia. Added to this is the mentality and endurance of the Russian people. I seriously fear a very, very difficult domestic political situation in the autumn/winter.

In every industrial company there should be risk management where active countermeasures are taken in case of 100% dependence on suppliers. That it does not exist for free is crystal clear. That this has been completely ignored on a macroeconomic level for decades is beyond me. No, 2nd source activities for e.g. LNG terminals have always been prevented.

This is due to an ideology that claims that market outcomes cannot be improved by state planning, or that state planning as a “planned economy” always leads to disaster. That the market is a price optimization mechanism that realizes risks through the elimination of actors is a problem: states and entire economies cannot be eliminated (where to?). The German state has explicitly promoted the cheapest solution because company lobbyists demanded this citing competitiveness. Now the risk event has occurred, the state cannot be removed from the market, and the Uniper example shows us that “too big to fail” also prevents market cleansing on the corporate level (for understandable reasons).

One question I ask myself in such matters is: Who benefits? Ukraine has been a playground for the “great powers” for several years now. The “revolution” in Ukraine reportedly did not occur without the involvement of the USA. This morning I read an article stating that the USA would rather not look too closely at Ukraine because they do not want to see the grievances. Ukraine is the location of a current proxy war, this time basically on our doorstep and not “far away.” Morally, I see Europe’s actions as correct, but from a realpolitik perspective, not. We have engaged in sanctions that cost us more than Russia. Additionally, there is the mentality and endurance of the Russian people. I seriously fear a very, very difficult domestic political situation in autumn/winter.

The benefit from the perspective of the actors lies in spheres of influence and possibilities of influence, i.e. power. Whether it always comes about is another question. But part of this game is that to expand one’s own power, one must curtail that of the opponent. This is called geopolitics and should primarily be replaced by the rule-based world order. But it does not work well because the truly powerful do not abide by it, see USA, RUS, CHN. Regarding the endurance of the Russian people, I see the Western sanctions as not as effective as we like to convince ourselves. Russia is a poor country measured by GDP per capita. The enormous revenues benefit a few oligarchs and feed the centers Moscow and St. Petersburg, which can compete with any Western city. However, extremely many Russians live rurally and so modestly that the sanctions do not change much for them. There is no broad middle class that really has a lot to lose. And it remains that Russia has enough foreign currency to supply itself from countries that do not impose sanctions with what it can purchase there. It does not look like this will turn 180°. I do not see the downswing of the wealthy centers as sufficient to depose Putin. And worse: If it did succeed, who would come next?