11 ms·

The people that usually are puzzled about this approach, also avoid any of the arguments on why people don't want nuclear facilities as the basis of their energ

The people that usually are puzzled about this approach, also avoid any of the arguments on why people don't want nuclear facilities as the basis of their energy infrastructure. Framing it as some closed minded ideological stance, and that Germany wouldn't be in a position to understand the pros and cons to nuclear technology, just looks to dismiss those that might have actual rationales for running their countries differently.

Juliate 4y ago
Also, framing it as if Germany policy had not been also ... "influenced" by Russia's long-term strategy would be quite naive.
- blub 4y ago
  Why does everyone attribute to deception what could just as easily be attributed to this relationship being beneficial for Germany (and a lot of other EU countries which are conveniently omitted from this discussion)? Energy is at the core of economic development and Germany and a bunch of other countries were able to get gas for decades.
  - agapon 4y ago
    Do you the famous (and maybe fake) quote 'The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them' ? It's the same here, but with selling energy to "capitalists". What Europeans might have seen as purely economic affair for the USSR / Russia was just means of getting money to grow and support its army, to buy Western politicians and media influence, etc.
    - blub 4y ago
      Theoretically you’re right. Practically you’re not though, because as history attests, the USSR dissolved peacefully and thorough all the ups and downs the economic relationship survived. This is perhaps why the warnings from the US were ignored for so long: they were based on self-interest and they had a track record of being wrong for decades.
      - lnsru 4y ago
        It was not peacefully. Rather without large scale war. Some people got killed: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_Events_(Lithuania) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_Events_(Lithuania)
    - wsc981 4y ago
      Germany is just the b*tch of the USA though, that becomes very clear in this press conference. Germany has nothing to say over Nordstream: https://youtu.be/OS4O8rGRLf8?t=74 https://youtu.be/OS4O8rGRLf8?t=74
      - mannerheim 4y ago
        'US Senate approves Nord Stream 2 Russia-Germany pipeline sanctions | The move by US lawmakers is part of a push to counter Russian influence in Europe, but European [i.e., German] lawmakers have said the US should mind its own business.' 2019 December 17 https://www.dw.com/en/us-senate-approves-nord-stream-2-russia-germany-pipeline-sanctions/a-51711980 https://www.dw.com/en/us-senate-approves-nord-stream-2-russi... 'Why Germany pipes down when talk turns to Nord Stream 2 sanctions | Chancellor Olaf Scholz won’t say pipeline is finished if Russia attacks Ukraine, despite strong pressure from allies.' 2022 February 8 https://www.politico.eu/article/olaf-scholz-silence-on-nord-stream-2-draws-fresh-criticism/amp/ https://www.politico.eu/article/olaf-scholz-silence-on-nord-...
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    "could just as easily be attributed to this relationship being beneficial for Germany" There is no single concience called Germany that may definitively answer the question of whether it benefits them. As is often the case, people benefetting from this relationship are not the ones paying the price when something goes wrong. For every 1 billion of economic benefit produced by this relationship, this war has destroyed 5. most lukely, without this relationship, the qar would not be possible.
    - blub 4y ago
      The fact that it persisted for decades and increased in capacity is proof that it benefited Germany and the other European countries. And you’ve noticed yourself that the benefits accrued in the EU and the costs were incurred in Ukraine. But this is oversimplifying things - the Ukraine war has other important geopolitical facets besides the admittedly important energy aspect, such as NATO expansion.
- guerrilla 4y ago
  I think it's a mistake to see that as one sided. Bringing Russia closer to Europe and (according to the now falsified theory) creating conditions for peace while also getting cheap energy has been a goal of plenty of European elites.
  - greedo 4y ago
    Elites who have been compensated handsomely by the Kremlin. "Useful idiots" comes to mind.
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    > Bringing Russia closer to Europe and (according to the now falsified theory) creating conditions for peace It's not falsified. It may have improved conditions for peace; the situation could have been far worse now. Real-world issues don't work out neatly; they are extremely complex; you never know what the alternative outcome would have been. As an analogy, eating healthy food and getting exercise isn't 'falsified' as health recommendations when someone happens to die young.
    - guerrilla 4y ago
      Yeah, definitely. I meant the position that it would be sufficient or decreased the probability much more than it could have (and did.) I'm actually of the opinion that it was the right thing to do and really we didn't do enough connecting the economies, bridging the cultures and elites and that's why we ended up in this situation. On the other hand, we probably shouldn't have gone that far in on gas without having done the rest of that and seeing actual results. If the long-term costs were accounted for, I think green was actually cheaper all along.
Veen 4y ago
I'm puzzled about why nuclear is deemed less satisfactory than dependence on Putin's Russia for the energy requirements of the world's 4th biggest economy.
- blub 4y ago
  Dependence on the Soviet Union and later Russia worked for 50 years. This partnership, which was being undermined by the US from the beginning, is attributed to establishing a basis for cooperation between the Soviet Union and Western Europe. Considering that the Soviets pulled out peacefully of Eastern Germany, that worked pretty great.
  - agapon 4y ago
    This is incredibly short-sighted. Soviets pulling out of Eastern Germany, the collapse of the GDR, the Warsaw Pact, the USSR has very little to do with the energy imports. One might even argue that the USSR would collapse economically even earlier if not for all the currency it got from oil and gas sales.
    - blub 4y ago
      Having a relationship based on mutually beneficial economic exchanges is an important reason why one would treat their economic partner nicely. It’s perhaps not the reason, but it is a reason. Given how peacefully it collapsed and the huge potential for mayhem, I’d stay away from altering the timeline.
      - bluGill 4y ago
        We have no idea what the alternate histories would look like. We can guess - yours is a reasonable guess - but it is all guesses. I can come up with reasons thing would things went far worse, and if you think a little you should be able to as well - they may be somewhat unlikely, but that is all the more we can say. What we do know is where we are today: Russia is not playing nice with the world despite our attempts to have beneficial economic exchanges. Would the not play nice with USSR scenarios be worse - we have no real idea.
jpgvm 4y ago
In what ways has nuclear energy failed Germany that don't stem from small scale and lack of investment?

Juliate 4y ago

Also, framing it as if Germany policy had not been also ... "influenced" by Russia's long-term strategy would be quite naive.

blub 4y ago
Why does everyone attribute to deception what could just as easily be attributed to this relationship being beneficial for Germany (and a lot of other EU countries which are conveniently omitted from this discussion)? Energy is at the core of economic development and Germany and a bunch of other countries were able to get gas for decades.
- agapon 4y ago
  Do you the famous (and maybe fake) quote 'The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them' ? It's the same here, but with selling energy to "capitalists". What Europeans might have seen as purely economic affair for the USSR / Russia was just means of getting money to grow and support its army, to buy Western politicians and media influence, etc.
  - blub 4y ago
    Theoretically you’re right. Practically you’re not though, because as history attests, the USSR dissolved peacefully and thorough all the ups and downs the economic relationship survived. This is perhaps why the warnings from the US were ignored for so long: they were based on self-interest and they had a track record of being wrong for decades.
    - lnsru 4y ago
      It was not peacefully. Rather without large scale war. Some people got killed: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_Events_(Lithuania) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_Events_(Lithuania)
  - wsc981 4y ago
    Germany is just the b*tch of the USA though, that becomes very clear in this press conference. Germany has nothing to say over Nordstream: https://youtu.be/OS4O8rGRLf8?t=74 https://youtu.be/OS4O8rGRLf8?t=74
    - mannerheim 4y ago
      'US Senate approves Nord Stream 2 Russia-Germany pipeline sanctions | The move by US lawmakers is part of a push to counter Russian influence in Europe, but European [i.e., German] lawmakers have said the US should mind its own business.' 2019 December 17 https://www.dw.com/en/us-senate-approves-nord-stream-2-russia-germany-pipeline-sanctions/a-51711980 https://www.dw.com/en/us-senate-approves-nord-stream-2-russi... 'Why Germany pipes down when talk turns to Nord Stream 2 sanctions | Chancellor Olaf Scholz won’t say pipeline is finished if Russia attacks Ukraine, despite strong pressure from allies.' 2022 February 8 https://www.politico.eu/article/olaf-scholz-silence-on-nord-stream-2-draws-fresh-criticism/amp/ https://www.politico.eu/article/olaf-scholz-silence-on-nord-...
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  "could just as easily be attributed to this relationship being beneficial for Germany" There is no single concience called Germany that may definitively answer the question of whether it benefits them. As is often the case, people benefetting from this relationship are not the ones paying the price when something goes wrong. For every 1 billion of economic benefit produced by this relationship, this war has destroyed 5. most lukely, without this relationship, the qar would not be possible.
  - blub 4y ago
    The fact that it persisted for decades and increased in capacity is proof that it benefited Germany and the other European countries. And you’ve noticed yourself that the benefits accrued in the EU and the costs were incurred in Ukraine. But this is oversimplifying things - the Ukraine war has other important geopolitical facets besides the admittedly important energy aspect, such as NATO expansion.
guerrilla 4y ago
I think it's a mistake to see that as one sided. Bringing Russia closer to Europe and (according to the now falsified theory) creating conditions for peace while also getting cheap energy has been a goal of plenty of European elites.
- greedo 4y ago
  Elites who have been compensated handsomely by the Kremlin. "Useful idiots" comes to mind.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  > Bringing Russia closer to Europe and (according to the now falsified theory) creating conditions for peace It's not falsified. It may have improved conditions for peace; the situation could have been far worse now. Real-world issues don't work out neatly; they are extremely complex; you never know what the alternative outcome would have been. As an analogy, eating healthy food and getting exercise isn't 'falsified' as health recommendations when someone happens to die young.
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    Yeah, definitely. I meant the position that it would be sufficient or decreased the probability much more than it could have (and did.) I'm actually of the opinion that it was the right thing to do and really we didn't do enough connecting the economies, bridging the cultures and elites and that's why we ended up in this situation. On the other hand, we probably shouldn't have gone that far in on gas without having done the rest of that and seeing actual results. If the long-term costs were accounted for, I think green was actually cheaper all along.

Veen 4y ago

I'm puzzled about why nuclear is deemed less satisfactory than dependence on Putin's Russia for the energy requirements of the world's 4th biggest economy.

blub 4y ago
Dependence on the Soviet Union and later Russia worked for 50 years. This partnership, which was being undermined by the US from the beginning, is attributed to establishing a basis for cooperation between the Soviet Union and Western Europe. Considering that the Soviets pulled out peacefully of Eastern Germany, that worked pretty great.
- agapon 4y ago
  This is incredibly short-sighted. Soviets pulling out of Eastern Germany, the collapse of the GDR, the Warsaw Pact, the USSR has very little to do with the energy imports. One might even argue that the USSR would collapse economically even earlier if not for all the currency it got from oil and gas sales.
  - blub 4y ago
    Having a relationship based on mutually beneficial economic exchanges is an important reason why one would treat their economic partner nicely. It’s perhaps not the reason, but it is a reason. Given how peacefully it collapsed and the huge potential for mayhem, I’d stay away from altering the timeline.
    - bluGill 4y ago
      We have no idea what the alternate histories would look like. We can guess - yours is a reasonable guess - but it is all guesses. I can come up with reasons thing would things went far worse, and if you think a little you should be able to as well - they may be somewhat unlikely, but that is all the more we can say. What we do know is where we are today: Russia is not playing nice with the world despite our attempts to have beneficial economic exchanges. Would the not play nice with USSR scenarios be worse - we have no real idea.

jpgvm 4y ago

In what ways has nuclear energy failed Germany that don't stem from small scale and lack of investment?