6 ms·

Fun fact. The soviets and now Russians have a big hand in promoting this misinformation.

by bioemerl 4y ago

NDizzle 4y ago
Most environmentalists are Russian?
- bob29 4y ago
  and green peace super soldiers
- thereddaikon 4y ago
  Not directly. More that they fund groups that are anti nuclear.
  - miguelazo 4y ago
    Wow, had no idea they were so involved with domestic politics. Where did you read that?
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      Russia, and before them the Soviet Union, has been backing domestic groups in Western societies fir ourpose of destablization, disrupting economic progress, etc., and weakening military stance for a long time. The anti-everything-nuclear movement ticked all those boxes in different ways. (And, yes, this kind of geopolitically-motivated propaganda works in all directions.)
    - mannerheim 4y ago
      On the Nord Stream website. https://www.nord-stream.com/press-info/press-releases/conservation-foundation-german-baltic-established-315/ https://www.nord-stream.com/press-info/press-releases/conser...
  - MrOwnPut 4y ago
    The entire conflict is created by the environmental NGOs though. Many countries & people fund those NGOs, either thinking they are helping the environment, or they have ulterior motives (promoting their investments). The NGOs are tricking people, they want to reduce nuclear to further solar/wind because they have investments in it. Russia is playing into the NGOs because they have the same end goal, wanting to reduce nuclear, but for their nat. gas. investments.
Octabrain 4y ago
Can you provide any source for supporting that claim?
- meindnoch 4y ago
  https://twitter.com/ziontree/status/1497998920739274757 https://twitter.com/ziontree/status/1497998920739274757
  - miguelazo 4y ago
    I love that the Guardian article in that thread cites the head of NATO's statements as proof of Russian involvement. This is even lazier than Russiagate.
    - mannerheim 4y ago
      And that makes the rest of the thread irrelevant? Here's Nord Stream AG directly saying they provided funding for WWF and BUND. https://www.nord-stream.com/press-info/press-releases/conservation-foundation-german-baltic-established-315/ https://www.nord-stream.com/press-info/press-releases/conser...
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > Nord Stream AG directly saying they provided funding for WWF and BUND That looks more like greenwashing than having a hand in promoting misinformation.
        mannerheim 4y ago
        BUND specifically states that they never opposed to construction of the Nord Stream pipeline, because they viewed natural gas as a good alternative to nuclear: https://twitter.com/simonwakter/status/1498228873682690050 https://twitter.com/simonwakter/status/1498228873682690050
      - miguelazo 4y ago
miguelazo 4y ago
Fascinating! Do you have any evidence for this?
- bioemerl 4y ago
  https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/599113-russia-used-soft-power-to-influence-eu-policies-and-anti-fossil/amp/ https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/599113-russia... https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/19/russia-secretly-working-with-environmentalists-to-oppose-fracking https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment... https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/russian-funded-environmental-group-gave-millions-to-anti-fracking-groups https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/russian-funded-en... China is doing similar to prevent mines for rare earth minerals being built in the United States
  - miguelazo 4y ago
    NICE. So two of those are just opinion pieces quoting Western cut-outs/think tank hacks, and the Guardian piece is relying entirely on the statements of NATO's chief. Funny how low the barrier of proof is when you're "the good guys." "He declined to give details of those operations, saying: “That is my interpretation.”" LMAO
    - bioemerl 4y ago
      If you want to know why the bar is so low: Firstly, it's incredibly difficult to track funding for entities like these, so when someone like the NATO chief isn't citing sources, it's probably because the sources aren't for the public to know. Second, this is something that Russia has done dozens of times. It should be shocking to you if they aren't funding this sort of narrative in the countries they want to be dependent on them.
megaman821 4y ago
So you are Russia. You have a powerful misinformation team that can sway global opinion. Out of all objectives that further Russian power, you have decided on the squashing new nuclear plants. Why this and not some other objective? Why can't they sway the global opinion on Ukraine? Surely they are trying.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  >Why this and not some other objective? Why can't they sway the global opinion on Ukraine? Surely they are trying. The Overton window is a thing, right? "Nuclear power might be really unsafe" is a much easier sell in the public discourse than "it's OK to invade your peaceful neighbors".
  - megaman821 4y ago
    That is exactly what I mean. There is virtually no public support for invading your peaceful neighbor, and no amount of misinformation is going to fundamentally change that. Support for building nuclear power plants is a contentious issue. Of course Russia wants to nudge the outcome in their favor, but saying Russian misinformation is mostly responsible for the anti-nuclear sentiment is crazy.
    - mannerheim 4y ago
      > There is virtually no public support for invading your peaceful neighbor, and no amount of misinformation is going to fundamentally change that. I mean, there is a sizeable minority who have been convinced by Russian propaganda on this; typically they refer to Euromaidan as a coup, blame the invasion on Ukraine for not implementing Minsk, claim Ukraine is banning the Russian language, and so forth. If propaganda can bump this from zero to twenty percent, why not from 40 to 60?
      - mrguyorama 4y ago
        These points are literally made on fox news many nights. How much does it cost to get fox news to broadcast your propaganda to 60 million americans versus bribing enough american politicians that have enough sway to actually disrupt things. Russia buying a politician would hopefully be a huge story. Russia buying advertising in the US to push for dis-unity or their abhorrent propaganda about Ukraine being full of nazis or that 1 billion dollars is a lot to pay (in old, out of date, expensive to decommission hardware) to absolutely defang the largest rival we had last century is derogatorily labeled as "Russiagate" and "conspiracy theory" and "liberal brainworms".
janef0421 4y ago
Why would Russia promote anti-nuclear disinformation? The Russian state-owned entity Rosatom is a major exporter of nuclear technology, so doing that would be against Russia's interests.
- mannerheim 4y ago
  Rosneft and Gazprom each make way more money than Rosatom.
  - janef0421 4y ago
    At present, yes, but those revenues are threatened by climate change, while Rosatom's revenues are likely to expand for the same reason.
    - bioemerl 4y ago
      Russia has massive incentive to keep Europe dependent on their fossil fuels.
      - janef0421 4y ago
        Yes, but doing that by undermining nuclear is a poor strategic move. It would leave Russia with no fallback strategy in the case that Europe did cease fossil fuels imports, and would undermine export of nuclear technology to other regions.
    - mannerheim 4y ago
      Those revenues have specifically gone up as a result of climate change measures. NS2 had a projected cost of 9.5 billion euros, and that's not even including any gas; you don't spend that kind of money without the expectation of making it back and more.
      - janef0421 4y ago
        Gone up in the short term, but likely to fall in the long-term.

Fun fact. The soviets and now Russians have a big hand in promoting this misinformation.

NDizzle 4y ago

Most environmentalists are Russian?

bob29 4y ago
and green peace super soldiers
thereddaikon 4y ago
Not directly. More that they fund groups that are anti nuclear.
- miguelazo 4y ago
  Wow, had no idea they were so involved with domestic politics. Where did you read that?
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    Russia, and before them the Soviet Union, has been backing domestic groups in Western societies fir ourpose of destablization, disrupting economic progress, etc., and weakening military stance for a long time. The anti-everything-nuclear movement ticked all those boxes in different ways. (And, yes, this kind of geopolitically-motivated propaganda works in all directions.)
  - mannerheim 4y ago
    On the Nord Stream website. https://www.nord-stream.com/press-info/press-releases/conservation-foundation-german-baltic-established-315/ https://www.nord-stream.com/press-info/press-releases/conser...
- MrOwnPut 4y ago
  The entire conflict is created by the environmental NGOs though. Many countries & people fund those NGOs, either thinking they are helping the environment, or they have ulterior motives (promoting their investments). The NGOs are tricking people, they want to reduce nuclear to further solar/wind because they have investments in it. Russia is playing into the NGOs because they have the same end goal, wanting to reduce nuclear, but for their nat. gas. investments.

Octabrain 4y ago

Can you provide any source for supporting that claim?

meindnoch 4y ago
https://twitter.com/ziontree/status/1497998920739274757 https://twitter.com/ziontree/status/1497998920739274757
- miguelazo 4y ago
  I love that the Guardian article in that thread cites the head of NATO's statements as proof of Russian involvement. This is even lazier than Russiagate.
  - mannerheim 4y ago
    And that makes the rest of the thread irrelevant? Here's Nord Stream AG directly saying they provided funding for WWF and BUND. https://www.nord-stream.com/press-info/press-releases/conservation-foundation-german-baltic-established-315/ https://www.nord-stream.com/press-info/press-releases/conser...
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > Nord Stream AG directly saying they provided funding for WWF and BUND That looks more like greenwashing than having a hand in promoting misinformation.
      - mannerheim 4y ago
        BUND specifically states that they never opposed to construction of the Nord Stream pipeline, because they viewed natural gas as a good alternative to nuclear: https://twitter.com/simonwakter/status/1498228873682690050 https://twitter.com/simonwakter/status/1498228873682690050
    - miguelazo 4y ago

miguelazo 4y ago

Fascinating! Do you have any evidence for this?

bioemerl 4y ago
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/599113-russia-used-soft-power-to-influence-eu-policies-and-anti-fossil/amp/ https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/599113-russia... https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/19/russia-secretly-working-with-environmentalists-to-oppose-fracking https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment... https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/russian-funded-environmental-group-gave-millions-to-anti-fracking-groups https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/russian-funded-en... China is doing similar to prevent mines for rare earth minerals being built in the United States
- miguelazo 4y ago
  NICE. So two of those are just opinion pieces quoting Western cut-outs/think tank hacks, and the Guardian piece is relying entirely on the statements of NATO's chief. Funny how low the barrier of proof is when you're "the good guys." "He declined to give details of those operations, saying: “That is my interpretation.”" LMAO
  - bioemerl 4y ago
    If you want to know why the bar is so low: Firstly, it's incredibly difficult to track funding for entities like these, so when someone like the NATO chief isn't citing sources, it's probably because the sources aren't for the public to know. Second, this is something that Russia has done dozens of times. It should be shocking to you if they aren't funding this sort of narrative in the countries they want to be dependent on them.

megaman821 4y ago

So you are Russia. You have a powerful misinformation team that can sway global opinion. Out of all objectives that further Russian power, you have decided on the squashing new nuclear plants. Why this and not some other objective? Why can't they sway the global opinion on Ukraine? Surely they are trying.

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
>Why this and not some other objective? Why can't they sway the global opinion on Ukraine? Surely they are trying. The Overton window is a thing, right? "Nuclear power might be really unsafe" is a much easier sell in the public discourse than "it's OK to invade your peaceful neighbors".
- megaman821 4y ago
  That is exactly what I mean. There is virtually no public support for invading your peaceful neighbor, and no amount of misinformation is going to fundamentally change that. Support for building nuclear power plants is a contentious issue. Of course Russia wants to nudge the outcome in their favor, but saying Russian misinformation is mostly responsible for the anti-nuclear sentiment is crazy.
  - mannerheim 4y ago
    > There is virtually no public support for invading your peaceful neighbor, and no amount of misinformation is going to fundamentally change that. I mean, there is a sizeable minority who have been convinced by Russian propaganda on this; typically they refer to Euromaidan as a coup, blame the invasion on Ukraine for not implementing Minsk, claim Ukraine is banning the Russian language, and so forth. If propaganda can bump this from zero to twenty percent, why not from 40 to 60?
    - mrguyorama 4y ago
      These points are literally made on fox news many nights. How much does it cost to get fox news to broadcast your propaganda to 60 million americans versus bribing enough american politicians that have enough sway to actually disrupt things. Russia buying a politician would hopefully be a huge story. Russia buying advertising in the US to push for dis-unity or their abhorrent propaganda about Ukraine being full of nazis or that 1 billion dollars is a lot to pay (in old, out of date, expensive to decommission hardware) to absolutely defang the largest rival we had last century is derogatorily labeled as "Russiagate" and "conspiracy theory" and "liberal brainworms".

janef0421 4y ago

Why would Russia promote anti-nuclear disinformation? The Russian state-owned entity Rosatom is a major exporter of nuclear technology, so doing that would be against Russia's interests.

mannerheim 4y ago
Rosneft and Gazprom each make way more money than Rosatom.
- janef0421 4y ago
  At present, yes, but those revenues are threatened by climate change, while Rosatom's revenues are likely to expand for the same reason.
  - bioemerl 4y ago
    Russia has massive incentive to keep Europe dependent on their fossil fuels.
    - janef0421 4y ago
      Yes, but doing that by undermining nuclear is a poor strategic move. It would leave Russia with no fallback strategy in the case that Europe did cease fossil fuels imports, and would undermine export of nuclear technology to other regions.
  - mannerheim 4y ago
    Those revenues have specifically gone up as a result of climate change measures. NS2 had a projected cost of 9.5 billion euros, and that's not even including any gas; you don't spend that kind of money without the expectation of making it back and more.
    - janef0421 4y ago
      Gone up in the short term, but likely to fall in the long-term.