a) A lot of gas is feedstock for chemical reactions generating products e.g. fertilizer. Russia is burning that gas and creating 100% pollution rather than useful products.
b) For all the Russian gas would have been burned in Europe, this effectively doubles the pollution because Europe has to replace the gas that Russia is flaring off from alternate sources.
But isn't that fertilizer then packaged, shipped around the world, stored in warehouses, all of which produces more emissions, until it's finally put into the ground to grow crops which are harvested (again more emissions) which are then packaged, chipped around the world (again more emissions), until they feed mostly animals which produce methane, which are then transported, slaughtered, processed, packaged, distributed to grocery stores (starting to see the pattern here, more emissions) all so we can doot-doot-beep-beep around in our little air conditioned emissions machines to the store to pick up and cook and then throw like a 1/3 of the meal away because left-overs aren't as satisfying?
But is it? Europeans are talking about not being able to afford their heat this winter, they're talking about food shortages, people are going to have to make due with less.
Afford is something else than not doing anything at all. Govt will finance any real shortages. Food crisis did not materialize too despite widestream doomsaying.
not really. Now there are fertilizer shortages, lower fertilizer usage due to price spikes and shortages.
Russia is simply doing almost the best they can, which is flaring it rather than venting it. I was hoping they would plug a lot of wells back in February. But I suppose they didn't have crystal ball and had more priority things to deal with.
>I find it strange that they don't set a negative price for natural gas
They did, that's what the flare is. I expected it[1].
>thus giving domestic producers an incentive to pause production.
They can't "pause" production, it's either go, or halt forever.
If they don't flare off the gas, then pressure builds in their lines, or, worse yet, they have to "shut in" the wells, which means their output is effectively lost for all time. There is a massive, irreplaceable investment in those wells and infrastructure that Russia can't afford to lose.
Natural gas contains water, these wells are in permafrost, which means if the flow stops, that water freezes, cracking the wells or the pipes from them. The last time Russia had a supply disruption, during the Soviet Collapse, this happened. They just finished repairing the damage in 2021.
If it happened again, they wouldn't be able to hire Western experts to repair it again, at any price.
> they have to "shut in" the wells, which means their output is effectively lost for all time.
What does this mean? Like the physical well asset is no longer useable? Or that the resource itself is forever unuseable even if you just make another well, if that concept even makes sense at all?
My understanding is that you effectively have to drill a new well, because of the permafrost, and the water in the gas, the well casing will get fractured, and thus leak, plus all the other fiddly details.
I do know that drilling through permafrost requires a level of expertise that Russia doesn't have in house in sufficient numbers.
>much of this gas would have been used to feed into the pipeline grid and sold on to Europe. Because Russia has sharply cut supply to Europe...
More of this Orwellian spin that Russia 'cut the supply'.
The EU sanctioned Russia and cut off their access to the global banking system and to their foreign currency holdings. They also announced that they'd be stopping buying any Russian gas at all by 2023. So Russia demanded Europe pay for their gas in Roubles. Because why wouldn't they in those circumstances? Most of Europe refused to pay in Roubles so Russia [and again, why wouldn't they?] said "If you don't pay, you can't have the gas"
The fact that this series of events is being constantly spun across multiple western media sources now as an arbitrary 'Russia turned off the taps' --in attempt to divert anyone from asking whether the west [and the EU in particular] has spectacularly shot itself in the foot here-- is disgraceful.
And we have the gall to criticise countries like China for the dishonesty of their press!
Well, I was not going to change your question. Why would I?
I'm just going to draw attention to the situation both sides "could put an end to this today, but they won't, because the loss of face is worse than the loss of life."
This seems to be a technically. If Russia withdraws from Ukraine tonight then tomorrow Europe would be far more like to take significant steps to get the gas and payment flowing.
More likely maybe but there are probably technical hurdles now too. Embargo’s don’t always get lifted. Russia would be forced to pay reputations, and parts aren’t available or repair so can’t be used immediately. It would take months or years to unwind this.
My points is that the immediate future (3 months) has already been decided in terms of gas prices and availability. Actions now could not meaningful affect that
Yes, but that doesn't change who is cutting off whom.
Russia invaded Ukraine and diverse countries who did not understand the significance of their choice to make themselves dependent on Russian gas had to take what peaceful measures they could to deny resources to Russia, but obviously the Rusdians aren't going to sell something in return for something they can't access-- it's equivalent to nonpayment. There's no readon not to say that openly.
The only bad thing about this affair is that some countries are trying to substitute their Russian gas for Azerbaijani gas, which is just as bad war-of-aggression wise , even though that is of course further away from Europe.
>The only bad thing about this affair is that some countries are trying to substitute their Russian gas for Azerbaijani gas, which is just as bad war-of-aggression wise , even though that is of course further away from Europe.
Yes. It's funny how moral outrage fades with distance, isn't it? And also with "Are they friends of ours or not?"
I've not noticed any calls to boycott Saudi Arabian oil in response to that country's Bombing and killing of civilians in Yemen.
It's incredible how otherwise intelligent people, switch off their critical faculties and revert to "baddies vs goodies" levels of analysis, when it comes to international politics.
Why can so many of you not see [beyond simplistic 'goodies' and 'baddies' labels] how much Russia feels threatened by that? Imagine if the cold war had been 'won' by the other side; Canada and Mexico had joined the Warsaw Pact and the USSR had troops and ICBMs stationed there. And now Alaska, which had declared independence from the rest of the USA was talking about doing likewise [0] How do you think the US would react?
Clue: look up 'Cuban Missile Crisis' if you need a hint.
One of the fundamental pre-requisites for solving crises diplomatically before the shooting starts is seeing things from the other guy's point of view. Simply dismissing 'them' as the 'baddies' and discounting their view of the world only leads to more conflict --as has happened in Ukraine.
[0] Baggsy a share of the royalties, if someone decides to write this up as an Alternative History blockbuster!
A bunch of European countries joined. They weren't forced to.
Of course the Russians feel threatened, but that doesn't justify anything. It's possible I too would have come to the conclusion and invaded Ukraine, if I were in their place, but it's still against the UN charter and it's still a war of aggression.
Countries don't have a right not to have huge alliances on their doorstep. That doesn't mean that they can allow them, so perhaps the war was inevitable, but the Russians don't have the power to take what they want anyway without losing more than they can afford to, so a necessity argument becomes dubious, and even a correct necessity argument wouldn't be a justification, because it would still be a war of aggression and against the UN charter.
You could also flip it around, and see it from a Ukrainian point of view, then there's a country that demands that they not join NATO, but imagine receiving such a demand? It goes beyond what is acceptable in the international order as we see it, a demand that another state subordinates itself.
I remember something someone in Sweden said, that if Russia were allowed to have their buffer state, Russia would force a large population than that which Russia itself has, to follow Russian policy in who they get to ally with. It's a comical thing. It's not quite true though, depending how you count, but even Ukraine alone is 40 million people, that alone is demanding to control another country with a population of 20% of Russia itself, so while it might not be right mathematically the point is still pretty sharp, I think. Imagine if Sweden demanded that Norway do as it wants, because it has smaller population.
The reality is that Estonia demanding a buffer between itself and Russia is no less legitimate than any demand of Russia to have a buffer between itself and NATO, which is to say, not legitimate at all. Peoples get to rule themselves and their historical lands, not anything else.
Reality is millions of people could freeze to death that probably couldn't find Ukraine on a map 10 months ago. Since the only view you get from is the one behind the electronic curtain it isn't surprising you are so misled. The green party in Germany laughed at the suggestion by Trump that Europe is too dependent on Russian gas.
>Does Russia have to invade Ukraine? Does it have to keep killing civilians?
You're changing the argument. I'm not arguing whether Russia was morally right or wrong to invade Ukraine. I'm arguing that Europe [in particular] was incredibly short-sighted to choose to respond by effectively forcing Russia to cut off our gas supplies in the run up to winter.
Would a democracy be practicing a genocide on its people for eight years and counting ? Would a democracy promote right wing extremism, much less arm them with heavy weaponry (eg 155mm shells and artillery)? Would a democracy embed such people and war criminals into its own military? To shoot its very own troops if they dared retreat from a suicidal order? Would a democracy shell a nuclear waste repository for days on end when this threatens a good portion of Europe with decades long lasting effects and a loss of major breadbasket region areas for agricultural production over these decades.
Tell me, what sort of democracy is this?
Would a democracy murder its own citizens and stage propaganda psyops to deceive the remainder of its population?
Would a democracy condone a project such as the below mentioned, and even be directly collaborate with its founder and members:
Everyone, “western media” included is fully aware that not buying the gas is about cutting off the money for financing the war. No one is “spinning” a story around Russia arbitrarily cutting off supplies - we know it’s neither technical issues nor rouble payments that are the root cause here. It’s a literal unprovoked and premeditated war that someone is using to retain their firm grip on power.
We’re not buying the gas because we don’t want it. We might be “shooting ourselves in the foot” economically/industrially, but that is the price that must be paid if Europe is to be worth living in.
> but that is the price that must be paid if Europe is to be worth living in.
Could you clarify, is it going to be worth living in because, by buying Qatar's LNG, it will help Qatar to fund Jabhat al-Nusra in waging a war in Syria? [1] [2]
You are being downvoted but I agree - us not wanting to finance that war does not mean all the other economic relationships are suddenly made “clean”.
This however is also a case of a “whatabout” argument. Anything from recycling to humanitarian aid can be effectively shot down in a debate with it.
Fact is - Ukraine is closer, and it has a more significant impact on the EU. There are Ukrainians in my neighborhood now. And their presence is confronting everyone in our society with the questions of whether we are willing to stand by our ideals. Whether we are willing to open up our homes, make our neighborhoods available, provide jobs etc. So far the answer has been yes, and I have found my country worth living in.
The whatabout argument is needed to check whether the principles stated by politicians are upheld and enforced universally across the board, as we all are supposed to support and pay for the moral principles that guide the current counter-measures. This would indeed make european countries visibly worth living in. But if the principles are being replaced by non-consistent utilitarian opportunities, because they make for a convenient political climate of non-responsibility for the people in charge, I don't see the extra price imposed on european citizens to be morally worth paying.
The truth is, there doesn't seem to be an option that would allow european leaders to morally avoid all economic dealings with tyrants. Hence diplomacy exists since the dawn of ages, and politicans had better learn and practice it to keep the tyrants occupied with their domestic issues, as it helps to propagate peace better than sanctions, and because the only other alternative to it is a growing military confrontation.
Unless the tyrants have a firm grip on their domestic issues and are executing a highly kinetic attack abroad. Then the sanctions are merely sand being thrown in the face, with hope of maybe blunting the short-term impact.
There was no diplomatic solution here. For 20+ years the West has been negotiating. Even delivering what was necessary for an economic boom to the other side in the 00’s-10’s. But there was never any good faith from the other side I don’t think: only a cynical belief that the West is actually just run by tyrants who run it all from the shadows. That the West is in a position to sell off independent countries, and that it is in control of it’s own “sphere of influence”.
This is where whatabout arguments fail imo. They don’t work when you realize that the “West” is a distributed network and no one is in “charge”. Politicians only uphold principles as far as they need to while juggling other parts of their individual brands.
I think it would be a deeper philosophical topic whether keeping “peace” is the only goal worth pursuing.
And where would they buy the roubles? And with what? However you cut it, buying gas from Russia means sending them EUR somehow. So the rouble thing is just a divertion from the real issue, which is people dying in Ukraine.
People aren't dying on the territories controlled by Russia, unless there are shellings and saboteurs from Ukraine [1] [2] [3], and Zelensky doesn't seem to be interested in peace negotiations unless it's on his terms, which means the war can be propagated back into the territories that have already began to recover. Does it actually serve interests of common folks who could care less about their flag of the day?
Russia is throttling the throughput although there are no sanctions for gas and all contracts with the German side are still in place.
Russia's behaviour is as if you had announced to cancel your internet contract next year and they suddenly throttle your internet this year to spite you.
You're the one putting a spin on things and I wonder why.
It's done out of necessity, not to spite anyone or to hurt the whole world.
The gas has to go somewhere, but if the regular receiver (EU) doesn't want it or denies the seller the ability to charge for it (sanctions) then you can't just keep compressing and piping it somewhere else forever.
> Rystad said that Russia is burning gas that would otherwise have been exported to Europe through the pipeline, which usually accounts for more than a third of Europe’s gas imports but where flows have been throttled back to just 20% of normal levels.
Doesn't seem to be a black and white situation given that the pipeline delivers gas at 20% its capacity. AFAIK it's Russia throttling on their end, is that not correct? Russia itself isn't even claiming it's payment related. Do you have different information?
Russia claims that it cannot deliver gas due to sanctions-related parts and maintenance issues with the pumping equipment. It is likely that the Russian strategy is to drive down EU gas reserves to the point where the EU drops its sanctions in exchange for gas this winter.
Which is actually a "funny" game being played as well. Germany got Canada to send the turbine back anyway despite sanctions, creating an outcry in Canada actually but now Russia doesn't want it and it sits around in Germany gathering dust. And on top now Russia says all remaining turbines are having issues too and stopped even the one turbine that was still operational.
Just to clarify for those who doesn't track this game. The part "despite the sanctions" is important here. The turbine was sent not back to Russia, but to Germany. And Russia tells there is no exemption to get this turbine to Russia, it was given only for Germany. Besides this turbine they refer to a few others not being fixed or sent for repair, so this one is even not the biggest issue, but for some reason it's commented the most.
Yeah the whole thing is a game. Canada sent it to Germany to spite both Russia and Germany and now it’s stuck. Taking the part from Germany would be considered a export and be subject to tax and other legal problems so now the turbine is stuck.
That's the "funny game" part. Different people will choose to believe different sides or parts of the two sides. As reported in the west e.g. German media, it is stuck in Germany because Gazprom refused to to take it and provide the required documentation, while Gazprom says the opposite basically.
Honestly I don't know what to believe for real because I can see both sides just playing word games. It could either be Germany ("the west") trying to make Putin look extra bad - also see the wording of "oh baaad ecological disaster burning all that gas" while they intended to mainly just burn it as well in winter, though of course burning it for staying warm is morally less bad than just burning it off, if you ask me - while looking for other sources of Gas anyway. On the other hand it is absolutely believable that Putin is inventing reasons that seem reasonable to the casual observer to stick it to the west, who are arming Ukraine - which he obviously doesn't like. Whether or not one agrees with one side or the other on whether it's a "special military operation" or an "attack" is irrelevant for that I believe.
Short term Europe is fucked.
Long term Russia is fucked.
Ten years from now Europe will be importing gas from Quatar and Gabon. And even if hypothetically Russia conquers half of Ukraine it won't offset the loss of gas contracts.
There's a reason why OPEC only tried that oil embargo stunt once- alternatives are found.
61 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 137 ms ] threadThis is hyperbole. Venting the gas would be an environmental disaster. Flaring just burns it somewhere different.
so at least 2x as much carbon is being produced (and even worse if the flared gas is replaced by coal instead of more gas)
a) A lot of gas is feedstock for chemical reactions generating products e.g. fertilizer. Russia is burning that gas and creating 100% pollution rather than useful products.
b) For all the Russian gas would have been burned in Europe, this effectively doubles the pollution because Europe has to replace the gas that Russia is flaring off from alternate sources.
Russia is simply doing almost the best they can, which is flaring it rather than venting it. I was hoping they would plug a lot of wells back in February. But I suppose they didn't have crystal ball and had more priority things to deal with.
Some natural gas is produced as a byproduct of pumping oil, but is that enough to glut their market on its own?
They did, that's what the flare is. I expected it[1].
>thus giving domestic producers an incentive to pause production.
They can't "pause" production, it's either go, or halt forever.
If they don't flare off the gas, then pressure builds in their lines, or, worse yet, they have to "shut in" the wells, which means their output is effectively lost for all time. There is a massive, irreplaceable investment in those wells and infrastructure that Russia can't afford to lose.
Natural gas contains water, these wells are in permafrost, which means if the flow stops, that water freezes, cracking the wells or the pipes from them. The last time Russia had a supply disruption, during the Soviet Collapse, this happened. They just finished repairing the damage in 2021.
If it happened again, they wouldn't be able to hire Western experts to repair it again, at any price.
1 - https://twitter.com/mikewarot/status/1562677637549412355
What does this mean? Like the physical well asset is no longer useable? Or that the resource itself is forever unuseable even if you just make another well, if that concept even makes sense at all?
I do know that drilling through permafrost requires a level of expertise that Russia doesn't have in house in sufficient numbers.
The EU sanctioned Russia and cut off their access to the global banking system and to their foreign currency holdings. They also announced that they'd be stopping buying any Russian gas at all by 2023. So Russia demanded Europe pay for their gas in Roubles. Because why wouldn't they in those circumstances? Most of Europe refused to pay in Roubles so Russia [and again, why wouldn't they?] said "If you don't pay, you can't have the gas"
The fact that this series of events is being constantly spun across multiple western media sources now as an arbitrary 'Russia turned off the taps' --in attempt to divert anyone from asking whether the west [and the EU in particular] has spectacularly shot itself in the foot here-- is disgraceful.
And we have the gall to criticise countries like China for the dishonesty of their press!
They could put an end to this today, but they won't, because the loss of face is worse than the loss of life.
Especially because of https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/08/ukraine-ukrai...
But both sides are hostages of their own politics and narratives of who's good and who's bad.
I'm just going to draw attention to the situation both sides "could put an end to this today, but they won't, because the loss of face is worse than the loss of life."
The actual war is related but not directly needed to end the energy problem.
Even if Russia surrendered there would still need to be cooperation to resume gas sales
Russia invaded Ukraine and diverse countries who did not understand the significance of their choice to make themselves dependent on Russian gas had to take what peaceful measures they could to deny resources to Russia, but obviously the Rusdians aren't going to sell something in return for something they can't access-- it's equivalent to nonpayment. There's no readon not to say that openly.
The only bad thing about this affair is that some countries are trying to substitute their Russian gas for Azerbaijani gas, which is just as bad war-of-aggression wise , even though that is of course further away from Europe.
I've not noticed any calls to boycott Saudi Arabian oil in response to that country's Bombing and killing of civilians in Yemen.
It's incredible how otherwise intelligent people, switch off their critical faculties and revert to "baddies vs goodies" levels of analysis, when it comes to international politics.
We care about Ukraine because we don't want Russian domination in eastern Europe-- it's simply a matter of security.
Obviously security must go first, but if we can afford it morality is often good long-term.
Why can so many of you not see [beyond simplistic 'goodies' and 'baddies' labels] how much Russia feels threatened by that? Imagine if the cold war had been 'won' by the other side; Canada and Mexico had joined the Warsaw Pact and the USSR had troops and ICBMs stationed there. And now Alaska, which had declared independence from the rest of the USA was talking about doing likewise [0] How do you think the US would react?
Clue: look up 'Cuban Missile Crisis' if you need a hint.
One of the fundamental pre-requisites for solving crises diplomatically before the shooting starts is seeing things from the other guy's point of view. Simply dismissing 'them' as the 'baddies' and discounting their view of the world only leads to more conflict --as has happened in Ukraine.
[0] Baggsy a share of the royalties, if someone decides to write this up as an Alternative History blockbuster!
A bunch of European countries joined. They weren't forced to.
Of course the Russians feel threatened, but that doesn't justify anything. It's possible I too would have come to the conclusion and invaded Ukraine, if I were in their place, but it's still against the UN charter and it's still a war of aggression.
Countries don't have a right not to have huge alliances on their doorstep. That doesn't mean that they can allow them, so perhaps the war was inevitable, but the Russians don't have the power to take what they want anyway without losing more than they can afford to, so a necessity argument becomes dubious, and even a correct necessity argument wouldn't be a justification, because it would still be a war of aggression and against the UN charter.
You could also flip it around, and see it from a Ukrainian point of view, then there's a country that demands that they not join NATO, but imagine receiving such a demand? It goes beyond what is acceptable in the international order as we see it, a demand that another state subordinates itself.
I remember something someone in Sweden said, that if Russia were allowed to have their buffer state, Russia would force a large population than that which Russia itself has, to follow Russian policy in who they get to ally with. It's a comical thing. It's not quite true though, depending how you count, but even Ukraine alone is 40 million people, that alone is demanding to control another country with a population of 20% of Russia itself, so while it might not be right mathematically the point is still pretty sharp, I think. Imagine if Sweden demanded that Norway do as it wants, because it has smaller population.
The reality is that Estonia demanding a buffer between itself and Russia is no less legitimate than any demand of Russia to have a buffer between itself and NATO, which is to say, not legitimate at all. Peoples get to rule themselves and their historical lands, not anything else.
Anyway, a bit of hypocrisy doesn't hurt.
Tell me, what sort of democracy is this?
Would a democracy murder its own citizens and stage propaganda psyops to deceive the remainder of its population?
Would a democracy condone a project such as the below mentioned, and even be directly collaborate with its founder and members:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myrotvorets
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myrotvorets&actio...
Chechen proverb (allegedly) "A man is not the one who knows how to fight, but the one who knows exactly who his enemy is".
As far as I can tell, to get back a democracy you need to do away with a junta first.
Everyone, “western media” included is fully aware that not buying the gas is about cutting off the money for financing the war. No one is “spinning” a story around Russia arbitrarily cutting off supplies - we know it’s neither technical issues nor rouble payments that are the root cause here. It’s a literal unprovoked and premeditated war that someone is using to retain their firm grip on power.
We’re not buying the gas because we don’t want it. We might be “shooting ourselves in the foot” economically/industrially, but that is the price that must be paid if Europe is to be worth living in.
Yep that’s exactly what’s happening.
Could you clarify, is it going to be worth living in because, by buying Qatar's LNG, it will help Qatar to fund Jabhat al-Nusra in waging a war in Syria? [1] [2]
[1] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/qatar-funnelled-millions-...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front#Qatari_involvem...
This however is also a case of a “whatabout” argument. Anything from recycling to humanitarian aid can be effectively shot down in a debate with it.
Fact is - Ukraine is closer, and it has a more significant impact on the EU. There are Ukrainians in my neighborhood now. And their presence is confronting everyone in our society with the questions of whether we are willing to stand by our ideals. Whether we are willing to open up our homes, make our neighborhoods available, provide jobs etc. So far the answer has been yes, and I have found my country worth living in.
The truth is, there doesn't seem to be an option that would allow european leaders to morally avoid all economic dealings with tyrants. Hence diplomacy exists since the dawn of ages, and politicans had better learn and practice it to keep the tyrants occupied with their domestic issues, as it helps to propagate peace better than sanctions, and because the only other alternative to it is a growing military confrontation.
There was no diplomatic solution here. For 20+ years the West has been negotiating. Even delivering what was necessary for an economic boom to the other side in the 00’s-10’s. But there was never any good faith from the other side I don’t think: only a cynical belief that the West is actually just run by tyrants who run it all from the shadows. That the West is in a position to sell off independent countries, and that it is in control of it’s own “sphere of influence”.
This is where whatabout arguments fail imo. They don’t work when you realize that the “West” is a distributed network and no one is in “charge”. Politicians only uphold principles as far as they need to while juggling other parts of their individual brands.
I think it would be a deeper philosophical topic whether keeping “peace” is the only goal worth pursuing.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/c/%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%83%D0%...
[2] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqcmvyHrmrmIC7nM1sA3_Uw/vid...
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMtEJAgFT2M
Russia's behaviour is as if you had announced to cancel your internet contract next year and they suddenly throttle your internet this year to spite you.
You're the one putting a spin on things and I wonder why.
The gas has to go somewhere, but if the regular receiver (EU) doesn't want it or denies the seller the ability to charge for it (sanctions) then you can't just keep compressing and piping it somewhere else forever.
Doesn't seem to be a black and white situation given that the pipeline delivers gas at 20% its capacity. AFAIK it's Russia throttling on their end, is that not correct? Russia itself isn't even claiming it's payment related. Do you have different information?
Honestly I don't know what to believe for real because I can see both sides just playing word games. It could either be Germany ("the west") trying to make Putin look extra bad - also see the wording of "oh baaad ecological disaster burning all that gas" while they intended to mainly just burn it as well in winter, though of course burning it for staying warm is morally less bad than just burning it off, if you ask me - while looking for other sources of Gas anyway. On the other hand it is absolutely believable that Putin is inventing reasons that seem reasonable to the casual observer to stick it to the west, who are arming Ukraine - which he obviously doesn't like. Whether or not one agrees with one side or the other on whether it's a "special military operation" or an "attack" is irrelevant for that I believe.
There are no technical reasons for the throttling, yet this is what the Russians claim.
Ten years from now Europe will be importing gas from Quatar and Gabon. And even if hypothetically Russia conquers half of Ukraine it won't offset the loss of gas contracts. There's a reason why OPEC only tried that oil embargo stunt once- alternatives are found.