It's far too late to change this. You cannot restructure the energy sources of a whole continent in a few months or even years. This could've been fixed if the West had understood and reacted appropriately to the magnitude of the Russian threat about 10 years ago, as foreseen by academics like Stephen Cohen and businessmen like Bill Browder, instead of blindly falling for its own hubristic self-delusion (which continues till today), i.e. the delusion of considering the West to be omnipotent and the delusion of considering Russia to be an irrelevant, backward, economically insignificant country (Obama famously called it a "regional power" much to the chagrin of Putin). But the West is too decadent, fat, and blind to see anything but its own narrative of post-cold-war unipolar dominance.
The worst part is, this delusion of believing in Western omnipotence continues fuelling bad decisions today. I was in Kharkiv, Ukraine when the war hit -- there were two major delusions prevalent in the weeks and months leading up to the war. 1. People believed the war could not happen because we believed our American superpower ally would somehow magically prevent the war or stop it quickly, or 2. we believed our leaders would have the sense to settle with Russia instead of destroying our country. 4 months later after losing 20% of our territory, both fantasies evaporated quickly, but I'm astounded at how many people continue to live in the 3rd fantasy of believing Ukraine could somehow "defeat" Russia while still avoiding WW3. Do people understand what a defeat of Russia would look like? Are you trying to bring a global thermonuclear war apocalypse? What is your endgame here?
1. 'The West' wasn't hubristic, Europe was. The US has been telling Europe to get off of Russian gas & oil for decades, under multiple administrations. Both parties have been extremely clear about this for over two decades now.
'I'm astounded at how many people continue to live in the 3rd fantasy of believing Ukraine could somehow "defeat" Russia while still avoiding WW3'
2. The US lost in Vietnam without using nukes. Even more relevant, the USSR lost in Afghanistan without using them! I believe Pakistan has lost 3 straight wars to its arch-enemy, with no nuclear weapons being used.
If we follow your logic to its conclusion, Russia can annex Poland, Lithuania, Germany, France, and so on, and at every step of the way we'd say 'well we can't defeat Russia or else they'll use nukes'. They'd be able to conquer.... everything this way. This seems bad? Would you like to live in this world?
You should compare Ukraine to Cuba, not Vietnam. You know, when US almost nuked Cuba and USSR just because Cuba is too close for comfort? Sort of like Ukraine is for Russia?
Yes, I would think Russia would be willing to fight for 10 years, because this is literally their backyard, not some far-off exotic country. Many Russians consider Ukraine to be practically their own territory, even more so than places like Chechnya.
but perhaps we could have had the foresight to do something else? its time to admit that our elected, due in no small part to the electorate, have not been very smart, and have basically fucked up. again. This is allowed because the regular joe is sedated with crappy television, gorging in grotesk amounts of crappy food, and washing it down with unlimited amounts of beer. at no point does the average european (or american) care at all about what happens
> 2. we believed our leaders would have the sense to settle with Russia instead of destroying our country.
What settlement could Ukraine have with Russia that wouldn't be the end of Ukraine? Russia is demanding that Ukraine allow part of its territory to secede and form "independent" nations, as well as have Ukraine avoid bolstering its ability to protect itself from its neighbours. Do you think those countries won't try to take more territory from Ukraine, with Russian backing? Do you think Russia will really stop invading Ukraine, after having already done it twice?
Again, what settlement would Russia accept and leave Ukraine safe from further Russian invasion?
Because the only one on the table simply has Ukraine remove its ability to defend itself, and create a Russian client state that Russia will continue to use to wage proxy war on Ukraine until they're entirely within Russia's control.
Appeasing the bully or tyrant leads only to more of the same. From the tyrant's perspective, what they did worked (gial achieved) and the opponents indicated that they are OK with it. Thus, they should try the next step they want.
The reason this invasion happened was because there was no real push-back to the Crimea invasion.
When would you propose that we start fighting back instrad of allowing Russia ti annex ever more - when Lithuania and Poland are being bombed? Berlin & Frankfurt? Paris? London? DC?
Are you Ukrainian? Because your take doesn't make sense. Do you really think Russia can afford going to war with literally half of the planet?
If that's the case, NATO might as well send preemptive strikes (nukes, etc..) to avoid that scenario or probably Russia could foresee that and strike first since they are currently at war.
The US was looking to buy petroleum from Venezuela. The same Venezuela they were vehemently criticizing and putting economic sanctions because of the ongoing dictatorship over there.
This war is more complex than we think. The world is already in a second cold war and now we have to blocks: the West (US and the EU) vs The East (China and Russia).
We are at "...hard times make strong men..." Cycle now.
Thanks for the high compliment, but although I stand with the Ukrainians, I do not have that heritage. I also do not appreciate your insult to Ukranians as if it would be their take, and their desire for freedom from Russian tyranny is somehow senseless.
>>Do you really think Russia can afford going to war with literally half of the planet?
In merely the past few weeks, Russian officials have specifically threatened Lithuania, Estonia, Poland and other areas, literally saying that these are 'historical Russian territories' and should be under Russia's control - the exact same justification for their current 24-Feb-2022 invasion of Ukraine.
Russia was not stopped after Chechnya, Georgia, Syria, Crimea, and other territories. Russia therefore assumes that since these advances were not strongly opposed, that more will be accepted. Since we are now opposing, if we do so successfully (push RUS out of every square inch of UKR territory), it will stop. If we yield, which is what Russia is counting upon, they will go further, at a time of their choosing. Not instantly, but they will not stop. This is being demonstrated at this moment.
>>If that's the case, NATO might as well send preemptive strikes (nukes, etc..) to avoid that scenario or probably Russia could foresee that and strike first since they are currently at war.
This is not true and is an unnecessary and counterproductive escalation. Russia has already made lots of nuclear sabre-rattling about various topics such as Finland and Sweden joining NATO, yet been shown to be absolutely toothless. Russia does not want nukewar any more than we do, but they do want us to cower under that threat. The choice is simple, either back down and accept tyranny under their threats, or stand up and face the threat.
Again, Russia will not undertake these ongoing wars instantly but will do so at a time of their choosing. The message we want to send is not that we will wipe you out now, but that your future attempts will result not in the successes you have enjoyed, but only more costly failures.
>>This war is more complex than we think. The world is already in a second cold war ...
Of course this is more complex. IMO, we are already in WWIII and have been since at least 2014.
>>We are at "...hard times make strong men..." Cycle now.
Fully agree. Now is the time to stand up to authoritarianism, or democracy will be lost globally for at least generations, if not centuries or permanently.
What makes you think that "every major city was destroyed"? Kiev has been saved, all cities west of it, Odessa is still defended (the Russians aren't very close to it). But indeed the Russians destroyed the cities they conquered in the east.
And yes, a lot of Ukrainians sought and found refuge in the EU. That doesn't mean they emigrated.
Well Zelenski tried - saying he wouldn't join NATO, offering to stick to the Minsk agreements and offering to chat to Putin and sort it out. Putin doesn't seem interested in that though and wants to take over part or all of Ukraine.
I remember you, the day before the war started, you bet me $25 that there would be no war (https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=martythemaniak&next=...). I'm glad you're alive and there's obviously no need to settle that bet, but despite everything you've been through, your understanding of the situation has not improved.
First, the Americans warned everybody that Russia would attack on Feb 16 and they were widely mocked for it... for a week.
Second, there is no "settling". Ukraine could either be a puppet state with all its leaders, laws and policies decided and picked by Moscow, or it can be a normal country. This was never about Russia getting the Donbas and Crimea and you could not have assuaged Putin by giving him this. Sadly this will take a while, but Russia will lose this war the way they lost Afghanistan, Poland, Japan and countless other wars.
I sent you an email to settle the bet a few months ago, it probably went to your spam. My email is in my profile.
I was wrong about the war, but I think my understanding of the situation has improved. My mistake was naivety. The naivety is gone now, and I think there is real chance of this war going global if the West keeps fuelling the conflict.
Ukraine cannot win this war unless it turns into a war between Russia and NATO, not Russia and Ukraine, with NATO troops and weapons entering the war on Ukraine's side.
This war will continue unless the Ukrainian govt decides to sue for peace and enter negotiations with Russia. This war is really about Russia telling the US and NATO to go F themselves. Putin is done with those "b**ches."
The purpose of prolonging this war through military support is to draw Ukraine into the remit of the West as they will be indebted in one way or another to the West if they "win" this war. That part is already done. The question is whether a defeat of Russia will allow that to be realized.
Ukraine's best bet now is to get rid of the Zelensky regime and replace it with one ready to enter into negotiations. If the West will not enter the war directly then the war is lost as far is Ukraine is concerned.
Zelensky has been ready for negotiations since day 1. The problem is that when Russia talks about "negotiations", what they seem to mean is complete surrender. Zelensky rightly rejects that, along with >80% of the Ukrainian population.
Conversely I think it will be quite difficult for Russia to win this war as long as a Ukraine keeps pressure up on their supply depots like they have been for the past week.
If Ukraine starves Russia of ammo they win the war and HIMARS looks like it is doing exactly that.
Additionally every week that goes by is a week that Ukraine gets new weapons in the past couple weeks it was HIMARS in coming weeks it’ll be M270s and Gepards, and in the coming month/s it’ll be NASAMS.
Really? Interesting. Crimea has the largest natural gas deposit in the world, capable of dethroning Russia but you said it wasn't about that? There's a good explanation for why Russia attacked Ukraina and it definitely has to do with Crimea and what Russians perceive as "existential threat" from the West. Sadly, any Russian president would have done what Putin did.
It's not black and white anymore. I'm just a bystander but instead of looking for alternatives to deascalate, people here want Ukraine to "win" the war by any means necessary while they are probably comfortable and well fed at home.
> Ukraine could somehow "defeat" Russia while still avoiding WW3
Why? These kind of cold-war era proxy wars happened throughout history. One big power makes a move directly or indirectly, while the other side will be supported indirectly by other powers. It becomes a pure resource war, and no party has a reason to escalate it beyond the conflict zone. Russia has no reason to open new fronts even if NATO props the war zone, or covertly supports sabotage attacks within Russia's border - the same way the US or China fights proxy wars, based on success, they take it or leave it (for the time). Ukraine is a long term strategic investment for Russia, not a life and death struggle.
USSR is not Russia. Afghanistan was a not a "core interest" or existential threat to any of the USSR nations.
If we use the Afghanistan analogy, Ukraine is on the border of NATO too. Interestingly, then NATO would be the overextended multinational entity trying to expand even further in this scenario. If we expect an "Afghanistan" scenario to repeat itself, then logically one would expect NATO to collapse.
In earlier comment you said: "Vietnam and Afghanistan .... Those were pure proxy wars. This is not a proxy war, it is a direct hot war."
And here you wrote: "This is not a proxy war. Russia is involved directly on its border. A proxy war is in a far off land." And I was saying that Afghanistan was not a far off land, it was on the border, so your two usages of "proxy war" weren't consistent.
Sorry, I don't understand your second paragraph, I was not trying to draw an analogy with USSR and Afghanistan.
As I understand, your argument is instead that: "Afghanistan was not important to USSR, so USSR did not consider using nuclear weapons then", while "Ukraine is a core interest of Russia, so it will rather start a nuclear war (and risk destruction of the world) rather than back down and return to the positions before Feb 24th."
I don't know if this statement is as obviously correct as it may seem to you. Certainly many believe that Russia is not willing to self-destruct to stand the ground here.
That doesn't contradict what I said though. Yes Putin wants to expand the Russian sphere of influence, and yes NATO is fighting against that in a proxy war led by the US, in Ukraine.
This isn't just Ukraine v Russia, hence the proxy war label is correct.
Oh for the love of god or whatever, Russia likes to think it’s a world power. It couldn’t fucking take kiev, so calling it a regional power is already pandering.
What I find most sad is, how differently we treat eg. USA when they decide to destroy a sovereign country due to their interests, compared to eg. now russia... I'm from slovenia, and we even sent soldiers to help them in afghanistan, and we still have them in syria... somehow noone mentions words like "war", "occupation", "civilian deaths" etc., when our soldiers are there...
"Civilian casualties of explosive violence mount as Taliban capture Kabul"
Somehow wikipedia is only the second link, mentioning the actual numbers of civilians.... but again... when was the last time news like this made headlines? When was the last time anyone imposed sanctions against countries killing civilians there?
Also, considering we're still there (eg. syria), we're still the occupying force there, why is there not daily reporting of what we did there and how bad it was? Why are there not international efforts to pull our soldiers out of there?
Although I agree there was no real punishment, after all the US isn't going to charge their own soldiers unless they can find hard evidence it was done on purpose because it would disincentivise them from doing their work, at best they could hope for some payment from the US, that did happen on the odd occasion, no where nearly as much I doubt as they would have received if they killed someone domestically like that though.
NY times is behind a paywall for me, but even the first story mentions a "mistake"... somehow when americans kill someone, it's "a mistake". The other stories are from (judging by the URLs) from 2006, 2017 and 2021... so yeah... considering america is still in quite a few countries now, and noone cares.
> because it would disincentivise them from doing their work
You mean "making mistakes" and killing civilians? Why can't EU impose sanctions on US? Like kick them out of the EU teritory as a start?
USA even bombed a couple of weddings in pakistan... and they aren't even at war with pakistan.
And let's not forget what happens when US kills a reuters journalist... they go after the whistleblower of course, and the website operator that published the video.
Look, we all know russians are bad, but for many more countries america is the "number one risk and enemy", and even at this moment, many more countries are occupied by US army than by the russians. If we (the europeans) don't mind americans destroying countries all around the world, even bombing some in europe (yugoslavia 1999, similar reasons to what putin is doing now), why are we destroying our own economies now, when the russians are doing it?
The only ones having any benefit out of this current crisis are the american politicians... EU economy is fucked, russian economy is fucked, and Biden is taking the taxpayers money, giving it to Zelensky, so zelensky can buy weapons from bidens buddies, who (probably) give a percentage back to biden (or whoever his handler is). Oh, and also china for getting cheap oil an gas from russia.
I must question how hard you are looking because none of these links have shown paywalls to me, and even if they did you could use reader view (depends on browser) or various archive services to see what was written. If you want articles from specific date periods you can use Google search date parameters.
> You mean "making mistakes" and killing civilians?
No, from doing any sort of military activity. If you wanted to 100% verify there is no potential civilian nearby any military activity would immediately grind to a halt. You'll find for similar reasons why few Nazi German soldiers were ever punished for killing civilians, because even the Allies understood is it something almost impossible to accuse your enemy of without it also applying to your own soldiers, thus most trials focused on purposeful targeting of civilians, which is something different.
> Why can't EU impose sanctions on US?
EU has put sanctions on the US for various things over the years.
> Like kick them out of the EU teritory as a start?
Because it would mean they actually have to pay for their own defense which none of them are particularly keen on doing.
> US kills a reuters journalist...
If you watch the actual video it's pretty clear the men the journalists are with are carrying weapons, if I remember correctly an RPG. Militarily speaking they were entirely a legitimate target and I personally never understood the controversy about it, perhaps because they worked for a western news organization it became famous. If you wanted to pick an example of them killing civilians who weren't hanging around with militants there are many better ones.
> similar reasons to what putin is doing now
There was no genocide of Russian speakers in Ukraine so that's nonsense.
> The only ones having any benefit out of this current crisis are the american politicians.
This is also obvious nonsense. How are high gas prices and high inflation rates beneficial to American politicians? The Russian economy is doing (for now at least) far better than the American or EU ones.
If you look at what was actually given, half of it is given under lend-lease, which as the name suggests, is a lease, they're not actually buying anything that they have to pay back. The US is buying them from whatever companies and then lending them out to Ukraine. If you read the law passed for it, the US expects no compensation for any loss of military equipment given to Ukraine, only that whatever is left is returned when the war finished. Instead of spouting conspiracy nonsense you should actually go and learn up on what you criticize because it's very common that people talk all this stuff about things they don't understand at all. I do agree though that China and India are big beneficiaries from this being able to buy things from Russia at big discounts though.
and why is it that we continue to do immense trade with china, given their treatment of various people? their extreme pollution(the green agenda is supposedly holier than the pope), why is it that we happily buy a gazillion trinkets from king pooh but putin is simply unacceptable in ALL ways. china is arguably far worse.
Except when the US helps Saudi to roll their tanks, then it's ok again /s
It's all very hard to be consistent about. For one thing, one can't fanatically support any "side" since there are bad deeds being done in many corners of the world.
Absolutely agree. And one more thing that looked incomprehensible just a short while ago was that Russia could completely shut down the gas flow to Europe (Russia needs money for the war in the end, so why would it do it?). However it seems quite a possible scenario as of now. Stakes became quite high, and unfortunately very little (if any) work is carried to stop the conflict and start negotiations.
Endgame sorta: Ukraine gets the military advantage and pushes the Russians back, maybe to the Feb 23 line, maybe more. Russia gets fed up like they did in Afghanistan, or the American/French did in Vietnam. A ceasefire is had and things kind of go back to normal.
Later maybe we'll get a more moderate government in Russia and they'll give up the neo fascist dictatorship thing?
Europe did not believe to be omnipotent but they just though that Russia could be trusted. Putin has thrown away a great deal looking for personal glory at the cost of Russia's future.
Did you believed that Russia was going to get Ukrainian territory easily, Putin thought that also.
> What is your end game?
Too avoid repeating the same mistake that with Hitler. Give Putin more territory and he will need hungry for even more. This may end the war now instead of encouraging further fights.
It could definitely be changed in years if there was sufficient will to do it, unfortunately there isn't because despite all the drama nothing has really changed except prices have gone up a bit. If people started going after politicians and CEOs with violence I am sure they would figure out a way soon enough.
I definitely agree about American hubris though, they had the opportunity in the 1940s to use nuclear weapons against the Soviets to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons but the risk avoiders and pacifists won out, those who thought America would win without war because they were under God or because their system was better or something of those ideals. I guess that ultimately was true and it did potentially save lots of lives but culturally & militarily speaking I don't see modern Russia being much different from the USSR.
Whether you consider that Ukraine can 'win' the war depends on your definition of 'win'. They could certainly stop them from taking any more than what they currently have, perhaps even take back significant parts of Ukraine, but it would require much more military support than is currently given. The US seems content on draining Russia without really having them lose much of the territory they have gained.
I am not quite sure why people think you could just 'settle' with Russia. Settling would only happen when Putin wants it to happen, and from his own speeches and writings it is clear he wants to restore Russia to how the USSR was geopolitically. I remember even 5 years ago some Russian military guys I knew who would joke about one day being able to have a second try of mass raping German and Polish women (WW2 being the first) so in my view I doubt settling would do much except delay further ambition of Putin.
I very much doubt that Putin would be willing to go to WW3 over Ukraine though no matter how many military defeats he had in Ukraine, he isn't stupid and Ukraine isn't worth that much.
The comments here are IMO definitive proof that Democracy is doomed because its citizens DGAF: too many are all too willing to lick the boots of the nearest authoritarian so long as they aren’t too terribly inconvenienced. Y’all gonna get what you deserve… I just wish your foolishness wasn’t going to drag me down with you.
If Europe loses gas supplies tomorrow, they would:
* Build coal gasification plants (they're fairly simple things, and don't require much special equipment - there are lots that already exist unused and are over 100 years old). Switch about a quarter of towns to 'town gas' rather than natural gas.
* cut down heating to only about half of buildings - 'stay with a friend' will be policy for the winter months.
* Switch off street lighting and other big non-critical electricity users.
* Shut down energy heavy industries - much of this has already happened because energy prices mean it isn't economical to make glass, pottery, aluminium, steel, etc.
* Don't interfere much with market prices - allow them to go sky high. But give each premises an energy credit approximately enough to heat and light one room for free - after that you pay sky high prices.
Using that strategy, current reserves would last 1 year at least.
There are plenty of other gas pipelines into europe.
Gas is traded internally all round europe, so 'cutting off' one country doesn't have much impact because they just buy from another.
It's the continent-wide energy shortfall that will be the issue, but as OP points out, there are plenty of ways to steeply cut energy use while keeping some semblance of regular life.
There are also lots of shuttered coal mines all round europe, many of which could be reopened if necessary, and coal to gas is an option - not done since the 1980's since it cost more, but it might well be back on the cards.
It's a convenient excuse to keep the pipeline flows as hostage for further negotiations. It happens every year, this year it might not come back on the expected schedule and from then it becomes a dangling carrot to be negotiated.
I dont know what will happen in the future, but as of right now, there is no way to buy at 1/10. Who knows, with the explosion in prices this year, it may well come down shitloads in the future, maybe near future, but that will then simply be market price, as it was 1 year ago when it was much much much cheaper.
bizarre to see strident, demanding stances among the replies since it is war but no mention of continuous public interest for thirty+ years to transition away from fossil fuels, discounted or ignored. No mention of efficiency anywhere to be found? "nega-watts" is from the 1970s. The current energy mix and its real-politik fossil fuel investors is taking down the biosphere harder than any regional firefight IMHO.
Honest question: Isn't it true that we should have peace through strength? If so, I don't see how it's a good strategy to have heavy dependency on Russian oil and gas while shutting down a country's own nuclear plants and other energy initiatives and go all in green. Or maybe the strategy is if Russian depletes its natural resources, we will win eventually?
Do you honestly believe that is a fair summary of the article?
The decision to shut them down happened long ago. They voted against a proposal from the opposition to revert that. The plants were planned to shut down since a long time, there is a lot of unsolved issues around keeping them running, like fuel and personnel. The plants also would impact gas usage only by 1% and electricity isn't a great replacement short term for all the gas used.
In hindsight I think the decision to get out of nuclear was wrong, especially before getting out of coal. But keeping the last 3 running for some more months isn't really a solution for anything.
It seems irrational because that's not what's happening.
Those power plants can't be run next winter.
Contracts have been terminated, replacement parts with long lead times haven't been ordered, maintenance windows have been shifted in anticipation of the shutdown. It's possible to write new contracts and order new parts, so they could be back in operation, maybe sometime late in 2023.
But that would still leave them them down precisely in the period that matters most: Next winter.
I'd be way more worried about the general populations ability to buy groceries and keep the house warm in the winter.
Globally a lot of harvests are falling through because of floods and heat waves. Combined with the inflation that's just starting to take off... Paying for life's necessities will be challenging for a lot of employed workers
A government is a law unto themselves. They have power to do what they need in times of war. Germany shouldn't be pulling a Chamberlain moment while Russia is hot to commit genocide in Europe and roll over whoever they want.
The first person who said words like yours was probably a chieftain long ago who went to his smiths and said "I need my new sword NOW, hurry up with that hardening!"
> Contracts have been terminated, replacement parts with long lead times haven't been ordered, maintenance windows have been shifted in anticipation of the shutdown.
"Excuses"? If you know that your company shuts down one year from now, why would you be ordering spare parts for five years into the future? Especially if you've known that date for twenty years like Germans did?
Sure, sure, but I find difficult to believe that an industrial superpower such as Germany can't find a solution in a couple of months.
The the usual politicians' way of speaking. If there was the political will of having the nuclear power plants works, they would go and find the spare parts in a second. There's no political will (thank you Greens!) so they make up excuses.
Germany is an industrial superpower without military industrial complex and command vertical, meaning that the government is not set up to do such things quickly (in fact, I don’t think even China would be able to move that fast).
Germany's shutting those down because of the Fukushima disaster.
A lot of Germans believe (rightly or wrongly) that Japanese are as quality-conscious and dependable as they themselves. Corollary: if the Japanese can fuck up in the ways that led to Fukushima, then the German operators can fuck up in similar ways.
Now, these people may be wrong. But they made the decision. Until Fukushima, there was a net pro-nuclear vote, after, against, because these people switched.
If you want to argue about safety, I think you might do well do focus on the safety issue that made the significant voter segment change their opinion.
Well, people were evacuated in time. The big question is: can they come back, like ever? The threat isn't so much people dying from radiation if evacuated in time, it is that large regions of densely populated central Europe can become uninhabitable and not usable for agriculture.
AFAIK, the Union/FDP government reversed that decision, made new contract with the plants, changed their opinion again after Fukushima and we now have to pay breach-of-contract fines to the nuclear power plants.
If twenty years ago it was decided in law that X would shut down about now, and X is shutting down now, then I don't see a reason to not say that the decision to shut down X now comes from a law twenty years ago.
Mine is that the decision to stop was taken by a government with a parliamentary majority in general, but narrow popular backing in this specific case. So the law at risk of revision if the right/wrong parties won an election. Some politicians thought revising it might be a good campaign issue.
The reacter lifetimes were extended after such an election, and I think it was a first step. If that had gone well, one of the parties in the coalition would've proposed revising the law before the next election. But it did not go well: "Fukushima ändert alles", said Merkel, and I think she was right. From that point on, the law aligned well with a broad majority of voters. Noone proposed a revision as a campaign issue after that point.
Right. There is no dispute that the Bavarian forests are still strongly contaminated from the Chernobyl disaster and will be for many decades. You still have somewhat to be careful to eat mushrooms from there and especially wild boar.
The problem with nuclear is simply that it is irrelevant to the current situation. Won’t add enough energy to the grid, won’t solve the problem of gas demand at all, so it really doesn’t matter if Germany was right or wrong about it.
No, nobody will admit to that or change their minds, the end of nuclear in Germany will be celebrated as a success for the environment.
No, changing the opinion now would not matter. Germany killed its nuclear industry decades ago. Being right about this would have mattered in the 80s and 90s. You don't get the CO2 or methane that has been emitted back into the ground or the people that died out of the ground by being right in 2022.
It very much matters over the timespan of several decades. That is enough time in which many more nuclear power plants could have been brought online. Just because Germany made the gross error of not building out enough nuclear power to provide for their needs doesn’t mean it is impossible.
No, it doesn't. The nuclear plants were never a substitute for residential gas heaters and the chemical industry consuming copious amounts of natural gas. Any shortfall from the nuclear shutdown can be covered by the underutilized coal plants. It's temporarily inconvenient but doesn't necessitate gas imports in any way.
Uh...are we still talking about Germany? Because in Germany they clearly weren't, unlike in case of France. And Norway's absolutely prodigious consumption of electricity (quadruple amount per capita) even underlines it: electrical heating is absolutely not the way to go forward -- efficient building codes are.
They weren't because of Germany's energy policy, not because nuclear is a bad fit for residential heating. We're talking about "[nuclear on] the timespan of several decades".
Germany has neither a nuclear military-industrial complex like the French do nor the opportunity to waste copious amounts of energy the way Norwegians do, so I fail to see how references to those countries are in any way relevant for Germans' situation. No amount of energy policy will compensate for their different circumstances to the extent of turning Germany into a second France or a second Norway.
Even if you think that's insurmountable problem there's an easy solution: Pay the French to build and operate them, they already do that for other foreign customers.
But look at France's portion of nuclear at the start of the 70s, then the 90s. There's no reason except political will that Germany couldn't do the same.
Perhaps. But saying with 20/20 hindsight of the 2020s that people of the 1970s should have made momentously different decisions for the future of whole national industries for decades to come doesn't feel any less arrogant to me. And that's even assuming that the international situation decades ago was the same as one of today, which it wasn't either.
I'm talking about what should be done today, not crying over the milk spilt in the 70s. I only mentioned the 70s to show how rapidly nuclear could be built to replace other energy sources.
If you look at any longer term projections on the German or EU energy mix in the next 10-30 years, natural gas will still be critical to the energy mix in 2050 if current plans continue. E.g. [1] shows a nice summary of that.
Thus arguments like "efficient building codes" are a red herring. You'll still need to heat your efficiently insulated buildings.
The current plans for doing that are fundamentally still those spearheaded by Germany and others before 2014. If the EU has a serious commitment to longer term sanctions on Russia those plans need to change.
I don't think they will. I think we'll still be buying Russian gas then, and that Germany et al will find some way to sell out Ukraine in the next couple of years. But one can always hope for better.
If you're suggesting a reaction today, then I need to point out that globally, over the past decade, new renewable generation was being installed roughly 15x faster than new nuclear generation. So even that is yet another difference from the situation from the 1970s that makes the experience of 1970s inapplicable: we have choices today that we didn't have back then.
> natural gas will still be critical to the energy mix in 2050 if current plans continue. E.g. [1] shows a nice summary of that.
Being critical and being a large component are two different things -- and it's not that difficult to source smaller amounts of natural gas than what Germany uses today. As far as predictions for distant future are concerned...well, we know how e.g. IEA was able to botch those. So I really wouldn't take any predictions about 2050 for granted.
> Thus arguments like "efficient building codes" are a red herring. You'll still need to heat your efficiently insulated buildings.
Decreasing the energy required by a factor of five or so is not "a red herring". That's a massive change. Likewise, there's apparently a chance that by 2030, this will have been amended to require zero-energy buildings in the future.
What is "enough"? If any solution has to solve all the problems to be considered at all, you're going to have trouble noticing solutions that chip away at the problem until it's solved.
The answer for the war is coal and this is exactly what Germany is doing. It is simpler and cheaper to run the existing coal plants at the full capacity or even increase it than try to maintain the nuclear plants long past the original design lifespan and that were planned to be stopped for years.
In retrospect it would be better if Germany did not decide to shutdown the nuclear, but presently this is a rational decision.
It “really goes wrong” only because we've set a really high bar for safety when talking about nuclear risks compared to most other carcinogenic risks: air pollution, pesticides, alcohol, tobacco, etc. If people where living in Prypiat right now, most of their cancer would come from other sources.
Because of the cultural stigma associated with radiations (which itself comes from the very real fear of a world-ending nuclear war during the early cold war) most smokers would refused to live around a nuclear accident site, even though it's quickly (after the most radioactive elements, namely iodine, has decayed away) much less dangerous than the cigarette they knowingly smoke all day.
Fun fact: did you know that in Germany alone the area of what has been destroyed by coal mining is comparable in size to the exclusion zone of Fukushima. This is when things go alright with coal: https://nitter.42l.fr/autommen/status/1538496930262704128#m
And yet we’re all still here and given the number of nuclear power plants and how long we’ve been using them compared to the tiny number of accidents it shows that it is truly the safest form of large scale power generation.
It is also a lot safer today if new reactors are built. The problem are the old reactors need to be shut down because they're based on older designs. We need to start building Pebble Beach reactors where even if there is a containment break, safe small carbon balls with a thin sliver of fissile material just spill out on the floor. These spread out and reduce their combined temperate averting a meltdown. Individually the balls themselves are not dangerous, they're lukewarm and could be held in the hand (not that you would). I think there are some even newer designs that go beyond this in safety. The problem with the anti-nuclear argument is that it is based on the old rod reactors like the one that failed in Fukushima prefect, Chernobyl or 3 mile island. Of course we shouldn't run those older models anymore. You need to start building the new safer reactors before you begin shutting down the old ones so you can logistically switch, however. Instead we're unfortunately heading for a future where we eventually just shut down these old reactors for safety without a real plan for replacing them. Or, we keep running the old models until they become the very cautionary tale that makes everyone nervous about nuclear.
At the moment it seems that the CO2 problem is more pressing and of greater magnitude than the problem of nuclear waste. It sounds like a relevant tradeoff.
You are misjudging the mood regarding nuclear power in Germany completely. You would have to expend so much political capital to keep those running, it‘s simply not worth it. Not for the benefit they provide, not for any communication goals you might have.
It really seems like a foolish decision. Is there any good explanation for why they are shutting these down other than anti-nuclear fears? I mean, it's Germany of all places so I can't imagine they have any concerns about costs to refuel, refurbish or maintain these reactors in the future--it's likely a rounding error in their GDP and budgets.
they stopped maintenance of these nuclear power plants 3 years ago because they "knew" they were out of life. Thus, they don't have the people or the safety measurements in place to go on with nuclear. Also, if the greens have no problem going further with coal, they wouldn't have a problem going on with nuclear (for a little while). So, it's definitely based on facts and not on idealism.
Also (I still don't understand HN's hype for nuclear), let's not forget how often and much the nuclear plants have to stand still because of xyz (e.g. too little cooling water, which was the case in France in the last months).
Sure but this is Germany, a financial and manufacturing powerhouse in the world. If they decided they wanted these plants to keep running I can't imagine they would have any trouble at all doing so.
What you can imagine isn't all that relevant though, once the decision to mothball an installation of this size is made it isn't as though you decide to run your car for another year. This is a massive infrastructure project, with all kind of regulatory hoops they need to jump through to operate safely, including training of employees, gear certification and so on. Starting things back up again could well be a multi-year project.
Germany's GDP is 4 trillion dollars, its government budget is over 400 billion. Refurbing 3 nuke plants is nothing with those resources. The entire manhattan project that pioneered nuclear power only cost about 50 billion in today's money, but they aren't even starting from scratch like that. If they wanted it to happen I can't see any financial or technical blocker.
Sure, but why bother? These 3 plants would only add a tiny bit to the German electricty production. They really won't be missed. And they cannot be used to replace gas, as gas power plants are used for quick responses, not base load.
But it isn't a problem of money. Sure we could pay for it. But that doesn't make things with a 1.5year lead-time appear in 3 weeks. You can buy _more_ but you can't buy _faster_.
So sure, in a year or two we can get these reactors back online. In 10 or 15 years we can even get new ones. But these time scales don't help in the next winter and on those time scales we can come up with solutions that are even better and not at risk at making eating shrooms you find in the forest killing you..
That article is about the Stasi infiltrating the German Green Party.
> Indeed, far from being an indictment of Stasi infiltration of the Greens, Gieseke and Bahr's study is a portrait of a largely failed attempt by the Communist German Democratic Republic (GDR) to co-opt the nascent left-wing party on the other side of the Iron Curtain.
How did a few Stasi cooperators the 1980s Green Party translate into experts recommending Germany's nuclear power plants be shut down in the late 2010s?
OK that's a lot of reading (HN equivalent of a Gish Gallop?), but only one seems to be about Germany and it doesn't mention experts advising on the closure of nuclear plants, so I'm just going to assume there is indeed no source for your claims that any of them were on Russian payroll.
Germany still does not have a solution for the nuclear waste. Nobody wants it. All the pro nuclear people turn into anti nuclear people once their region is looked at for a nuclear waste disposal site.
Recently a former conservative minister got an award for fighting against wind power which is named after a former key figure of the early green movement in Germany, wo later dropped out to figth against wind turbines.
Bavaria is holding back the construction of a crucial north-south connection for electricity, which would bring the power from the wind-rich north to them. But they don't want the power lines messing up their landscape.
Everyone wants electricity, nobody wants to see the infrastructure that makes it.
Freezing to death this winter because your source of fuel oil is now your geopolitical enemy seems like a more pressing problem than the tiny amount of waste 3 plants will generate decades from now.
Please inform yourself before you say things like that. This discussion is already hard even without the constant interjection of uninformed opinions.
The decision to keep these 3 plants running or not is not about the waste, but about the fact that they were planned to shut down for years now, and there is some real hurdles to reversing that now. The impact of keeping them on is also rather small. The effort and money is more effectively spent elsewhere.
To prevent "freezing to death" would require heating, not electricity, which Germany has enough. It is the house heating that is powered by gas. And no one is going to freeze to death, the question is only the impact onto industry.
Sure. And it can. We are talking about 3GW of nuclear on a grid which has like 100GW capacity vs 60-80GW consumption. Much more, if the sun is shining or wind is blowing. Yes, it is absolutely annoying to bring back some coal plants into service and using them more overall, but those 3 plants are only a small drip into the bucket.
If they would be easy to run longer, I would be all for it. But big money is better spent into reducing the gas dependency overall.
1. As already noted by other posters, the decision to decommission these plants was made years ago.
2. As a consequence, the plants are in no shape to be run much longer without major refurbishment, rehinring and training personal. Also, the fuel rods are basically spent, new ones would have to be ordered and manufactured which takes quite some time. Want to guess where most fuel rods came from? (spoiler: Russia)
3. Yes, running them longer would have saved burning some coal which would be good for the climate.
4. They wouldn't have saved much, if any, gas burning. Gas power plants are "fast" plants, vs. nuclear plants, which are the slowest to change power output. Nuclear power plants consequently cannot replace gas power plants. On top of that, there are a lot of combined electricity/heating gas plants. They cannot be replaced by nuclear power either.
5. Electricity production is just a small fraction of gas usage, the biggest part goes to private home heating and of course, industrial usage.
So, yes, bad timing. Woulnd't have been a problem but for Putin attacking and utterly destroying parts of the Ukraine. But as things are, the best way to deal with is, to press forward with renewables instead of sinking more money into nuclear. (By the way, the real crisis is that only 50% of France nuclear powerplants are operating. Between heat and repairs, French power supply is under much greater pressure, actually often enough supported by Germany)
> They wouldn't have saved much, if any, gas burning
Compare to coal (that seems to be the tradeoff in Germany) nuclear energy kills 820x more people per produced energy unit. 820x the number of human lives lost.
> Can you back that up? To me it looks like only 5% of uranium is in Russia
It's not about mining. You need to enrich uranium first, and a massive portion of world's industrial capacity for that is in Russia: https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/research/commentary/re... - "Russia had around a 46 percent share of global enrichment capacity in 2018".
You are linking to uranium production, not the production of fuel rods.
And yes, the nuclear power plants produce less CO2 than coal. No doubt about that. But that is the consequence of a decision over 10 years ago. Unfortunately, the same government who decided that, didn't built up renewables at the required speed, actually slowed down the buildup of renewables.
And? What is the relevance of that? Not shutting them off wouldn't in any way influence the industrial and heating heating usages of natural gas in Germany which are the main problem.
You won't heat homes using electricity more efficiently than with direct heaters without significantly redesigning them, so all this would do would be using even more primary energy than before. This is going to happen over time as nZEBs according to the 2010 and 2012 EU directives are going to replace old buildings in the building stock, but you can't make that happen overnight.
Also, since the origin of the electricity doesn't matter in this case, to say that you'd need to not shut down those nuclear plants is clearly wrong since you could just use the currently underutilized coal plants to get exactly the same effect -- except the lack of electricity is clearly not a problem.
We're literally going into an era, where politicians are advising their citizens to "wear a warmer sweater" at home, in one of the strongest economies in the world. Every killowatt of energy helps, and if you're able to switch a percent or two of your people to use electricity for heat, that can save a lot of gas for areas, where there are no alternatives.
Yes, long term we can talk about many alternatives, but it's july... august, september, and it's already cold, space heaters cost ~10eur (2kW) and are still available (atleast more available than the alternatives).
It turned out that "strongest economies in the world" are like that by literally destroying the world's ecosystems. If you have any idea how "wear a warmer sweater" is a bad suggestion until we make it so that the destroying of the world's ecosystems is not necessary, out with it. Energy-efficiency-wise, wearing appropriate clothing is one of the best ideas.
And 30 nuclear reactors are still offline in France. Of the 28 still available, 5 are partially down. Many of these reactors are out of order because of technical issues (mostly unexpected corrosion).
Luckily Europe has endless resource of renewable energy. And that is peat. Finnish peat fields alone surpass oil reserves of Norway. Also money-vice. Gas generation from peat is simple process.
Saying pete is renewable is like saying aquifers are renewable. You're not wrong, but how much can you extract renewably? Any amount extracted above that is like burning coal for CO2 purposes.
Also, pete is incredibly dirty in terms of air quality.
What's the alternative though? I also wish we would completely stop paying Russia, but this will come at incredible financial and stability (i.e: Europe falling apart) costs. Perhaps we should increase our spending on ending the war sooner instead. I don't know. We're caught between a rock and a hard place.
EU level energy emergency measures. So much time lost already since late February. Measures would have to radically focus on short term returns to yield a timely effect.
Some ideas to evaluate, in no particular order. Some are (close to mainstream), others elephant's shit:
- accelerated LNG terminal buildouts (butchering Nordstream 2 and making it a terminal at the coast, ...)
- EU level natural gas purchasing
- carrots for lowering per capita energy consumption: insulation, contests, subsidies, ...
- temporary ban on use of cars with >= 3l engines
- 100 km/h EU wide maximum speed limit
- no private jet traffic except for medical emergencies
- temporarily extend/unmothball coal and nuclear electricity plants
- temporary regulatory relaxation on wood harvesting for heating purposes
- 24/7 production at any and every solar panel, wind turbine, insulation and heat pump manufacturer
- faster rollout of planned (hvdc) interconnects
- EU wide helicopter money for paying energy bills or lowering them: per capita, differentiated by climate zone
- (possibly) concentrate large solar and green hydrogen projects in southern EU (higher immediate returns)
- intensive direct wage support for employees in temporarily loss-leading energy intensive sectors
Well, what was the alternative during WWII? Defeating Nazi Germany for instance. Which is what happened. But surely not doing business with it during the war, that's self explanatory.
I think you're underestimating our dependency on energy in the modern world. It might be easier to convince us to just go ahead and start WW3, but we aren't going to do that, sorry. I hope we can find some way out of this that will be less harmful. What that will be I suppose only time will tell.
We sent our soldiers to every shithole america decided to "bring democracy to", but now, ukraine has become so important, that we are willing to destroy our own economy and "passively fight" until the "last dead ukranian", to achieve what exactly?
>doing business with [Nazi Germany] during the war
it is often forgotten that this is exactly what the US did for the first 2-3 years of the war. Germany swallowed up the wealth of Europe. Britain had already swallowed up the wealth of a quarter of the world. the US swallowed up both of their wealth and ended the war with 2/3 of the world's gold
this is a simplification, but it's also huge overarching story of WW2 that is often missed. people know the US and Russia became the world's two superpowers, but there's very little attention paid as to how the US came to be one of them
Also, your question is far more complex and not comparable to the russo-ukraine war.
For one, the geo-political situation prior to WW2 and especially compared to today might aswell be from a completely different planet. Prior to world war 2, a intranational political union like the EU did not exist, not to mention most countries in europe weren't democracies at the time.
perhaps the worry is that if Europe collapses, we may discover some of the members actually align with Putin? That's the nature of democracy, all it takes is a candidate (which we usually label as "populist") to leverage the resentment of the hardship endured because of being anti-putin.
I was more thinking about countries like Italy, that don't feel a direct threat from Russia; quite the contrary they feel they have everything to lose by keeping the current stance.
I have a declared fascist father in law, and he sided with Putin from the very start (his opinions are generally an unimaginative mirror of what he reads in the major Italian newspaper he reads)
See since you have Lithuanian name I know for sure a lot of Lithuanian liberal youth whose parents still habitually watch Russian television, so I am not sure what you are talking about in regards to that "anti-Russian notion in genes", that's just plainly not true.
Part of older generation does live in Russian media sphere. Tiny part of younger generation too. But combined that's definitely not a big part.
There're plenty of polls about views on Russian-Ukraine war. And views are pretty one sided.
Another division is people who were moved here by soviet government. It's not uncommon that the old generation, born outside of Lithuania, lives in Russian media, sometimes not even speaking Lithuanian after decades of living here. Yet their (grand)children are well integrated into Lithuanian society, including anti-Russian notion.
.... and then we have our own bunch of Russofiles for various reasons. Including among youth, and even what you'd call liberal youth. Some famous people now do incredible stunts to cover pre-Russian-invasion actions. While others stick to their guns.
That's a strange question, as several big chunks of Europe were allied with Germany at various points after WWII started (and others remained neutral).
Didn't know WWIII already started. If you meant stopping doing businesses with a country that invades another, I'm sorry to tell you that there are not enough "non-invading" countries that can sell all the resources that we in the EU need now.
Exactly my point. Trying to whitewash this with "need to do business" isn't helping your arguments. Some tried to use same ones for doing business with Nazis during WWII. They very much don't like when anyone reminds about it today.
Same will be for anyone who is doing business with Putin's fascists today.
I find it deeply concerning we are still very much in bed with Putin. We should have taken drastic steps early and maybe be half way in tapping alternative sources. The fact Germany is happily closing nuclear power plants shows Europe is in for a rude awakening when Putin tightens the vice.
Have you done the numbers on how many nuclear power stations you need to replace all gas and oil heating in Germany? What would be your guess? 2 or 3? Or maybe it's more than France has at the moment. Just a thought...
Because none of those plan on taking over europe. Russia still has the goal to directly control all slavic countries and indirectly control the rest of Europe. Most europeans remember the USSR.
Does being a democracy make the US a better country than the others? If it's the voters, and not a guy, who decides to invade and take over your country, then is it OK?
And while none of those countries may be involved in a military conflict right now, they've been in the past. Recently.
So given there is no good country selling gas right now, I prefer to get the cheapest one. Thanks.
Unfortunately it doesn’t even matter. The infrastructure simply doesn’t exist and takes many months to build. Germany could choose to buy from anywhere but it doesn’t matter, there’s no way to get the gas to where it’s needed in time for winter.
Most of Europe got overrun. Bizarrely enough in my own country the German occupation made the economy boom- as we were Arians the Nazis didn't steal anything until D-day. It became obvious the Reichsmark would be pretty useless after Germany lost so the whole house of cards collapsed.
Let's be clear - those who support Putin today are fascist sympathizers and no amount of demagoguery is going to change that.
What I'm surprised about are such pro-fascist comments here on HN. But good thing is that today it's becoming more and more clear to most, including in Europe. There will be no more sitting on two chairs for those who support Putin's fascism.
[0] "Energy content of gas storage sites in the EU". At the time of posting, it is mostly smooth but has a very steep drop at the end. from about 77 to 58 GW*year.
The US invaded Grenada and Panama when the regimes there threatened her interests and changed them. Why do you think that is a privilege reserved only for the US?
If you don't want to accept that sanctions imposed on Russia prior to this ware are a form of warfare you can't be helped. That is the thrust of my argument.
Putin understands very well, and simply said F those b*ches I am going in hard!!
'Sanctions imposed on Russia prior to this war' were a direct answer to 2014 Crimea invasion. You are repeating 'US made me do it' bullshit rhetorics, invalidated by putin himself when he got honest for once
It was in the Soviet era that Crimea was made part of Ukraine. Once an Ukrainian govt hostile to Russia took over it was inevitable that Russian tanks would move in.
Why do guys like you think that Russia is ready to cut of direct control of a port important to its maritime and naval operations? When America invaded Panama to guarantee its control of the Panama canal where were you?
When Britain tried to wrest control of the Suez canal back from Egypt after Egypt nationalized it, which the US deliberately sabotaged where were you?
Ukraine has been invaded simply because Russia will not tolerate a Government serving a hostile US on its border.
Last time I checked Russia also had access to the Sea without Crimea.
You clearly have some framework of what "is accepted" in terms of territory and what isn't. Somehow Kaliningrad is valid, but Crimea isn't.
I am not going to change your mind, but let me say this for the others who are reading here:
None of this matters.
Some time in the 20th century, most of the world agreed to stop trying to expand their territory and accept the borders as they were at the time. This led to prosperity, safety and peace.
Russia is breaking this contract, creating suffering and hardship.
> Kaliningrad was handed over to the Soviet Union as a result of an agreement among the allies. That it belongs to Russia is accepted.
Like how Crimea was handed over to the Ukrainians by the Soviet Union
That Crimea belongs to Ukraine is accepted.
Russia made a huge mistake pushing further, not many people seemed to do anything when Russia took Crimea, but now it sure looks like they could lose badly enough and lose Crimea itself, and by that their black sea fleet entirely.
You can't be friends with a country which commits joining a military alliance which puts your ports and navy under the control of your enemies.
You seriously expect Russia to have its military and merchant ports in Crimea under NATO control as a sign of "friendship"?
What kind of crack do you have in your pipe?
If you want to be fair then you might as well have Crimea revert to Turkey as it was part of Ottoman Empire in the past, or perhaps the Tatars can have it back if you want.
You prefer to view the world through the reality distortion field of the Western media controlled by the military-pharmaceutical-financial industrial complex. Fine. Have it you way.
> You can't be friends with a country which commits joining a military alliance which puts your ports and navy under the control of your enemies.
It's a defensive alliance, one that is designed to stop Russia doing exactly what its doing now.
Russia does not get to decide what alliances its neighbours join. Russia does not get to invade, rape and slaughter innocent civilians just because it wants to.
Ukraine and Russia don't have to be friends just because they are neighbours.
> It's a defensive alliance, one that is designed to stop Russia doing exactly what its doing now.
NATO hasn't been a defensive alliance since the fall of the Soviet Union. Its role in the two Iraq wars, Libya and in the wars in the Balkans wars are proof that is not a defensive alliance. It has become a tool for US military hegemony.
> Russia does not get to invade, rape and slaughter innocent civilians just because it wants to.
Bogus bullshit. The idea that the Russian military see the rape and slaughter of innocent civilians as the way to get the cooperation and support of a population's which it sees as part of its Federation is nonsensical.
Perhaps you should read the article again and again and again.
Zelenskyy was Holomoisky's protege and if he was calling for better relations with Russia years ago then perhaps Zelenskyy's regime should have listened, rather than follow the path which has precipitated this invasion by Russia.
I dont know why you think this war would have been avoided with 'better relations' with Russia, the only way that this would be avoided would have been if Ukraine became a vassal stake of Russia like Belarus is right now.
If you want to put this way how is Ukraine being a a vassal state of Russia that different from Germany being a vassal state of the US by submitting to sanctions blocking the opening of NordStream II which the Germans were looking forward to opening?
Perhaps Germany thinks that economically hurting Russia is more important than finishing the pipeline?. There is not an option of vassal state of America or Russia. The choices are living under what is at least trying to be a democracy versus being a slave state to Russia.
> Perhaps Germany thinks that economically hurting Russia is more important than finishing the pipeline?
Sounds like the guy holding a hammer before another guy and saying "I know you think I'm being cruel to you, but believe me when I say this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you" and proceeds to strike how own shin hard with the hammer.
> The choices are living under what is at least trying to be a democracy versus being a slave state to Russia.
Oh there. That "democracy" word. Like how America waged long destructive wars in order to bring "democracy" to Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan resulting in 100s of thousands if not millions of deaths.
So now we are going to have a long war in the Ukraine for "democracy" which is nothing more than having gay pride parades.
America is that wonderful "democracy" where monthly insulin treatments cost hundreds of dollars, and the walking wounded in vehicle accidents would rather make their way to the hospital on their own rather than have an nearby ambulance take them for fear of the $3000 bills they may be hit with for a journey less than 30 minutes. The wonderful democracy when many families do not even have $400 of savings to weather a medical emergency. I would say low-income Americans are being terrorised with fear of destitution by the own "democratic" Govt, inspite of the US being the wealthiest country in the world.
There is as much democracy in Ukraine as there is in Russia. I believe Ukraine's ruling regime ranked lowest on the corruption index, and now its democratic leaders are the toast of the free world for standing against Russia.
A free world where bodily autonomy was rudely sacrificed for the sake of ineffectual Covid vaccines.
I could go on and on about the flaws of the "so-called" free world but you would find that boring.
> You prefer to view the world through the reality distortion field of the Western media controlled by the military-pharmaceutical-financial industrial complex. Fine. Have it you way.
You think this is deep, but this is r/iam14andthisisdeep
You think you are free-thinking, but are spouting another kind of group-think and Russian propaganda.
The truth isn't always in the middle between NYT and RT. It's not that simple.
-de.svg){kind=link}
[1] https://entsog.eu/ [2] https://agsi.gie.eu/#/historical/eu