14 ms·

What's disappointing is the response of european leaders so far. They have prepared a sanctions package against Russia which won't include anything in the energ

• silvercove 5y ago
• nikanj 5y ago
  Obviously not, as very successful anti-nuclear campaigning means all of EU is dependant on russian fossil fuels
  • KennyBlanken 5y ago
    Nuclear power plants have been shutting down because the companies that run them can make power more cheaply with wind and solar, not because of "anti-nuclear campaigning." Wind is the cheapest way to make power, with solar being a close second.
    • Swenrekcah 5y ago
      There has definitely been extensive anti nuclear campaigning. Wind and solar are great but they’re not dependable.
    • Aperocky 5y ago
      > Nuclear power plants have been shutting down because the companies Except that is demonstrably false: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/history-behind-germanys-nuclear-phase-out https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/history-behind-ge...
    • xienze 5y ago
      But what happens if say, the wind doesn’t blow as much as expected [0]? Renewables are great but since you can’t easily bank massive amounts of power for later, you need some sort of reliable, consistent energy source that continues working when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing. Like gas or nuclear. But with nuclear plants falling out of fashion, guess what that leaves you with. Renewables are great but you can’t just ignore their downsides. 0: https://fortune.com/2021/09/16/the-u-k-went-all-in-on-wind-power-never-imaging-it-would-one-day-stop-blowing/amp/ https://fortune.com/2021/09/16/the-u-k-went-all-in-on-wind-p...
    • hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
      They are also way less reliable which is a huge disadvantage from the point of view of the state. And we're still far from having good energy storage (that is cheap, clean, efficient).
  • hawk_ 5y ago
    Yep, one after another decision reeks of short termism. There's a dictator who believes the world as some zero sum system right at our borders and we are burying our heads in sand.
    • PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      It seems odd that you use the term "short termism" in connection with a remark about the anti-nuclear movement, one of the major concerns of which has been the the multi-thousand year half life of fission waste.
      • hawk_ 5y ago
        short termism there is the fear of losing elections due to a misinformed populace. we should have educated people instead and embraced nuclear as the stop gap for the next 100 years while we develop all kinds of other energy tech.
        • PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
          I'm 58. Back at the "height" of the anti-nuclear movement in the UK (which I'd peg at about 1978-1982, that movement was full of educated people who chose to reject nuclear (fission) power. The fact that you don't agree with them doesn't require you to suggest that they were uninformed or uneducated. I don't agree with you (mostly), but that just means that I've come to different conclusions about what is in reality a complex question.
          • nickpp 5y ago
            They are directly guilty for the climate crisis, though. We wouldn’t have so much CO2 in the air if we followed the logical path to almost free electricity from nuclear.
            • PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
              > almost free electricity from nuclear. It seems that you may have watched a few too many of the early promotional videos of the nascent nuclear industry. Also, "directly guilty for the climate crisis" seems a little over the top. Sure, the anti-nuclear movement did lead us to generally not go down a path that would have helped avert or at least reduce the climate crisis. But the climate crisis was directly caused by the discovery and subsequent use of fossil fuels, not the anti-nuclear movement. That movement had what it considered a clear and present danger that implied that nuclear was not the right answer to replace fossil fuels. It is not a "logical" path to follow - the decision involves many tradeoffs and value judgements, and while I understand that you apparently would have resolved those differently, the anti-nuclear movement operated in good faith to try to avert what was at the time considered a much greater risk than climate change. We might, or might not, ever discover if they were right.
• relix 5y ago
  There needs to be an escalation path. Sanctions should always be able to get worse, or else Russia would no longer have anything to lose, and Europe won't have anything left to threaten with. Once in that situation it would be a recipe for a hot war between NATO and Russia.
  • hawk_ 5y ago
    Isn't saying that energy sector won't be touched a few days before Putin's latest declaration showing our hand too much though.
    • sitkack 5y ago
      Don't those natural gas pipelines go through the Ukraine? Regardless of how they get destroyed, when they do, Russia will have everything it needs to justify a full invasion. https://www.nationalgeographic.org/photo/europe-map/ https://www.nationalgeographic.org/photo/europe-map/
      • throwaway3b03 5y ago
        Wasn't that the whole point of NS2, to have a pipeline that doesn't go through Ukraine?
        • _ph_ 5y ago
          Right. And that is why many in germany oppose it. With the recent developments, it might be dead completely.
          • dogma1138 5y ago
            It’s already complete, Germany is also opposing any economic sanctions that target Russia’s energy sector.
          • twelve40 5y ago
            > that is why many in germany oppose it Hm... why? Because the Germans, out of goodness of their hearts, want the Russians to keep dumping the annual $1.5bil+ transit fees into Ukraine? It's the same exact dependency on the same exact gas, just delivered through a bunch of countries each grabbing a cut, instead of directly.
• Gwypaas 5y ago
  The renewable build out is what I would imagine is one of the causes of this, besides the geopolitical and keys to dictatorship angle. Within 5 years, 10 years at most, Europe will have transitioned far enough to renewables that energy is a lost cause as geopolitical tool. Then Russia truly is screwed. Some of the former countries in the Soviet bloc which more readily faced this issue of Russia trying to extend it's sphere of influence to them they already solved it through more costly means. Lithuania and Poland did not build LNG terminals because they provide cheap gas, they built them as a costly hedge against Russian use of gas supplies for political purpose like seen with Ukraine in 2005, 2007 and 2009. Which people seem to have forgotten. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005%E2%80%932006_Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005%E2%80%932006_Russia%E2%80... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_ga... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_disputes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_dis...
  • qqtt 5y ago
    > Then Russia truly is screwed. Too early to say that so definitively. Russia is banking on a close relationship with China in that time frame. Looking into the future from here in 2022, that doesn't seem like such a bad bet.
    • Gwypaas 5y ago
      Definitely, the problem is: What does Russia provide for China? For energy, China is also all in on renewables. See this chart for what they are committed to building. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/average-annual-power-capacity-additions-in-china-in-the-announced-pledges-scenario-aps-2020-2060 https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/average-annua... What is the status of Russian exports outside of energy?
      • kleton 5y ago
        China is expanding in every type of energy they can get, including renewables. However, tanks and jets run on naphtha.
• redwood 5y ago
  Europeans need to proudly wear jackets indoor for a winter to really show some consequences
  • raxxorrax 5y ago
    We should have used the opportunity for something like Minsk II. The current strategy of threats is clearly not working.
• tmalsburg2 5y ago
  The US relies heavily on Russian oil [1]. Why the sole focus on European imports from Russia? [1] https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/why-is-the-u-s-still-importing-so-much-russian-oil-and-petroleum-products/ https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/why-is-the-u-s-still-i...
  • dogma1138 5y ago
    The US is really not reliant on Russian oil or anyones for that matter. It still imports from Russia but those imports are private deals which are conducted simply due to market conditions. There is no strategic import of Oil or any other petroleum products from Russia.
  • akmarinov 5y ago
    At the same time, the US is energy independent https://news.yahoo.com/u-now-energy-independent-174226538.html https://news.yahoo.com/u-now-energy-independent-174226538.ht...
    • tmalsburg2 5y ago
      Even more shocking then that they are buying massive amounts of oil from Russia, thereby filling Putin’s pockets, no?
      • nyokodo 5y ago
        The US is technically energy independent thanks to shale oil but, unless my knowledge is out of date, the shale business is only dabbled in by the big oil companies that own the vast majority of the big refineries in the US. Shale oil is dominated by smaller more numerous companies, it can scale up and down lightning fast by oil extraction standards, and it needs much less refining than most other sources of oil so the big oil companies import oil from all over to employ the refineries and due to their international entanglements. So there is the strange import export dynamic because there are two camps with broadly different incentives and a really complicated market.
• albertnewton 5y ago
• laurent92 5y ago
  > response of the european leaders so far Sorry I’m un-knowledgeable, but what do you say to the following, well-known argument? “What would USA say if Russia installed missiles in Cuba? / What did Russia say when OTAN envisioned including Ukraine and thus installing missiles there? / Therefore, isn’t the solution to simply abide by the 1991’s USA promise of not taking foothold in the states bordering Russia?” ? I’m unable to judge this idea with my knowledge.
  • trasz 5y ago
    What if people living there _do_ want USA's (or West in general) foothold? Is their opinion less important than some politics done over their shoulders?
  • nickpp 5y ago
    There was never such a promise. Russia is not entitled to a "buffer zone" of subdued neighbors.
• risyachka 5y ago
  US and Britain promised a lot and delivered practically nothing. This one is on them. No one even asked them to fight, but they did promise to defend Ukraine in exchange for nukes. So there was zero reason not to hit russia with crippling sanctions a month ago. But hey, promises are made only to be broken. So much for the Budapest Memorandum.
  • dogma1138 5y ago
    There is a major opposition to crippling sanctions from some of the European powers primarily Germany and France. The US cannot risk implementing sanctions that will not be followed by its partners as at that point it would have to sanction European entities too or back down either way it loses. Europe opposes sanctions that broadly target the Russian economy especially its energy and financial sectors. Germany and the rest of Europe is still going to be buying a fuck ton of Russian gas and limiting Russian banks and financial institutions isn’t going to pass Germany as its banks have been issuing a lot of loans to Russian institutions and they still want to get paid. With Russia’s Escalate to Deescalate doctrine specifically around nuclear weapons any armed conflict is impossible. And since Europe pretty much has its hand in Putin’s trousers sanctions would also be minimal in scope. In fact I would bet on that no new sanctions would be put forward unless Russia goes outside of the “contested regions”. The West has pretty much accepted that the “breakaway” regions are now “Western Russian” and Ukraine is going to be completely screwed over by its so call partners just like Georgia.
  • mlindner 5y ago
    What are you saying? We flooded Ukraine with weapons. We did the maximum extent possible without actually causing world war 3.
    • dogma1138 5y ago
      We didn’t, the US has declined transfer of many weapon systems including Patriot and other air defense systems to Ukraine. The US has supplied them primarily with small arms and man portable anti tank weapons. The Ukrainian armed forces aren’t rolling in M1 under the cover of Apache gunships and F-35’s… Even if they had the money for it no one would sell them any weapon systems you can’t pretty much buy on Gunbroker.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• Reichhardt 5y ago
  European leaders are bought and paid for. The ex-chancellor of Germany is on the board of Rosneft: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-rosneft-board/russia-nominates-german-ex-chancellor-schroeder-to-rosneft-board-idUSKBN1AS0FS https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-rosneft-board/russ... The same Chancellor who initiated the German nuclear phaseout, thus embedding European reliance on Russian gas.
  • raxxorrax 5y ago
    His ties are questionable but they would actually be useful instead of the hotshot idiots now putting their weight into the dialogue. At that time the relations to Russia were far better and it would be desirable if they return to that. Especially for safety concerns. But after 9-11 Russia had to be tamed in the context of the war on terror. The connections of Schröder predate that.
• jansen555 5y ago
• me_me_me 5y ago
  Easy answer (benefit of the doubt), they are playing for time till winter passes and less gas is needed to heat the homes.
• sleepingadmin 5y ago
  >What's disappointing is the response of european leaders so far. They have prepared a sanctions package against Russia which won't include anything in the energy sector! If not energy then what, Matryoshka dolls? and we are supposed to take them seriously :-( Oh yes, they will talk tough but will ultimately not do anything at all. Sanctions will target nothing intentionally. I'm certainly not saying I believe it but the conspiracy theory goes... Putin, Xi Jinping, Boris Johnson, Angela Merkel/Scholz, Jacinda Ardern, Eman Macron, Justin Trudeau, and Scott Morrison are allied against the USA. With some other smaller allies. Biden's warnings about imminent war in Ukraine, I thought was warmongering. What US president hasn't war mongered since I've been alive? A week ago I did not consider this to be anything but a conspiracy theory. The current state of affairs in the last week? I am open to listen to more evidence. Regardless of the conspiracy theory, sure does seem everyone is about to dunk on the USA. We are also due for a massive bloody conflict: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generational_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generatio...
  • sleepingadmin 5y ago
    To edit my first post, Democrats have been calling bloody murder against the Russians for how long? Russians are who took Snowden, Russians are the ones who hacked the DNC to reveal Clinton. Democrats assert Trump is controlled by Russia. It seemed all so farfetched. The moment Putin crossed border into the Ukraine... Putin is the aggressor here. ok well I'm listening to the democrats suddenly. As a Canadian, boy am I ever uncomfortable finding myself seemingly at odds against the USA. I sure hope the republicans can open discussion with the democrats over this.
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]