Comments by "robheusd" (@robheusd) on "TLDR News EU" channel.

  1. 6
  2. The problem is that Ukrain had a transit monopoly over Russian gas deliveries to Europe and misused their position, causing trouble. A further problem is that Ukrain did not invest enough in reducing gas consumption. If europe is clever it needs to do those investmens in reducing gas consumption and in return receives a portion of the amount of gas saved using Nordstream2. As gas prices in western europe are higher, the financial benefit of that can pay for the investments in gas reduction and the extra transit costs. It would create jobs in Ukrain, and would reduce the reliance on Russian gas, and costs nothing for Ukrain. Their energy bills remains the same or can even get a little lower, as part of the gas which is saved is rerouted to western europe, and the selling of that gas pays for the necessary investments over (let's say) a 30 year period. Why didn't the EU come up with this idea, as it both complies with climate goals and complies with reduction of dependence on Russian gas, and at the same time provide for the gas that is needed in euroope, avoiding price increases, and would be an affordable mechanism for reducing gas. Eastern europe has colder winters, so investments in gas reductions have more impact, and on the other hand, the economic return on gas reductions is higher when the gas is sold in western europe. There are ways to solve the conflict without going to war! Let's improve first the geopolitical climate in order to create more intelligible ways of solving the gas problem!
    2
  3. 2
  4. 2
  5. 1