> They seem to be playing both sides.
They are (arguably) playing for themselves first.
Actual EU action in this conflict has been pretty well aligned with citizen/voter interests in my opinion; this is not strictly a good thing, you could uncharitably call it "emergent unprincipled EU hypocrisy".
Many voters want energy safety, inflation to be kept in check and to minimize spending on foreign conflicts and national defense. Lots of Europeans agree with keeping Russian expansionism in check, but they don't really want to pay for it nor risk escalation.
Generally, sacrificing trade for ethical/moral reasons sounds like an easy sacrifice to make, but this comes at a real price (getting overtaken by "immoral" nations that don't, possibly ending with ethically worse global situations in the long term), and things like this get fierce opposition in a democracy where you have to balance ideology with the economical well-being of your voters (ideological voting is much more achievable if you can at least pretend that it aligns with economical self-interest somewhat).
To me, EU feet dragging in the Ukraine war is a bit sad but unsurprising.
Morality wise, I'd say several middle-eastern petro-states are significantly worse than Russia (non-democratic government, human rights violations at large scale epsecially against foreign workers), and trade with those has been going on for decades...
It is not that much different with the US policies in the middle-east. If anything EU is at least not supporting coups in pro-russian satellite states. But I think that is mostly because the EU can't operate at that level of intervention as a federation, it is up for individual states and that can get them into big trouble with the EU.
But yeah, it is not great look for democracies when they can't support good causes because it will cause harm domestically which leads to less votes.
The issue is complex. Now there is a US president who wants to control all energy supplies to Europe while still talking about new oil deals with Russia:
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-russian-officials...
And wants to control Russian gas to the EU:
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-investors-eye-str...
Nord Stream has been sabotaged, a huge US LNG deal was forced on the EU in the tariff negotiations. The US leased a corridor from Azerbaijan through Armenia to Turkey that could be a new energy choke point for fossil fuels from Azerbaijan or Turkmenistan (lots of natural gas) to the EU.
The EU is in a pretty bad position right now where it can be blackmailed with energy cutoffs not by Russia but by the US.
The Ukrainians can't feel betrayal because they have kept their own transit pipeline open until 2025, long after Nord Stream was blown up (allegedly by Ukrainians on a sail boat, see the recent arrests).
> huge US LNG deal was forced on the EU in the tariff negotiations
It wasn't really, as the EU have no ability to make member states do basically anything around energy, so that clause accomplishes basically nothing.
Nor do I understand ... Saying how horrible the Russian regime is, while directly giving it more money.
It's nigh on incomprehensible when political leaders' actions contradict their words, since politicians are always truthful. It seemingly happens often but will remain forever a mystery.
The reasonable countries, such as for example Czech Republic stopped using Russian gas and now also oil while the ones corrupted by Russian interests did not & could not be expected to until either their government realigns with the res of EU or the stuff stops flowing.
Guess what happened with the pumping stations once the last reasonable countries stopped importing & the transfer contracts were no longer valid. Yes, boom.
And of course there was much wailing from those corrupted countries that did nothing to get ridd themselves from dependency on Russian energy - how very expected.
Because Europeans need gas to heat their homes and run their economies. They have rapidly built new LNG terminals to diversify away from Russian gas pipelines: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/liquefied-gas-doe...
Morality has nothing to do with it, no democratic government will survive freezing its own people for some abstract principle.
It's not abstract. The money goes directly to committing war crimes and the bombing of cities. Civilians are dieing as a direct result of their funding of the regime. As far as I can understand, it's not ambiguous that they have blood on their hands
Because the alternative is energy prices spiking so high that governments would collapse under mass protests. Cutting Russia off overnight would mean blackouts, factories shutting down, and heating bills people simply couldn’t pay. That kind of chaos would destabilize Europe faster than any Russian offensive.
Europe can’t defend Ukraine by destroying itself.
> Nor do I understand how Europe still buys gas from Russia
Because the alternative isn't buying gas from somewhere else, it's not buying the gas. This turns a foreign war into a major major domestic issue.
Can’t they just increase their imports from the US?
They can and they already do, LNG from the US is flowing in. But swapping dependence on Russia for dependence on the US isn’t the clearcut win people imagine. Washington is in the middle of its own trade war, and Europe is one of the targets. Pax Americana is over, and Europe is treated less as an ally than as a vassal. The US openly exploits Europe’s fear of Russia, turning a legitimate threat into a lever for domination. What Europe gets is dependency and vulnerability, while the US extracts obedience and profit.
The irony is that the US slaps higher tariffs on most European countries than it does on Russia itself. As the old saying goes, "it may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal".
I'd be curious to hear what Europeans actually think of it on the ground. Is it not a major domestic issue that your governments are funding a genocidal regime? Do people just kinda pretend it's not happening b/c it's inconvenient to talk about? Just kinda blush, say sorry, and carry on?
I don't really understand the psychology of it. Are people for instance actively trying to use less gas in their personal lives?
I don’t speak for others, probably a minority opinion. I vividly remember the protests against the switch to Russian oil and against the pipeline. There’s a saying here: if you burn your ass you sit on the blisters.
Most Europeans see it like watching someone drown, they want to help, but not at the cost of drowning themselves in the process.
I mean, the compassion ends when your bills increase twofold - it's that simple.
I see different degrees of genocide and support.
I am generally against arms deliveries, especially to Israel and Russia.
Sanctions should above all be effective. Russia is difficult to sanction especially if China and India do not play along.
The energy sanctions hurt Germany more than Russia, so I don't support them.
Specifically, I heat with gas in winter and try to reduce my consumption.
edited, not feeding the troll
Look at the name, he is likely trolling people.
[deleted]