5 ms·

I am sure the Russians spent much energy and money to shape the public opinion in Germany to serve their interests.

karmakurtisaani 2y ago
Not sure if they sold much gas to Germany during the Soviet times. I really don't know if they did, but it was cold war times then after all.
- fauigerzigerk 2y ago
  I don't know how much gas they actually sold at the time, but some major oil/gas pipelines were built during the 1960s, 1970s and early 80s. So the intention was clearly there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_in_the_European_energy_sector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_in_the_European_energy_...
  - karmakurtisaani 2y ago
    That's interesting. Even if the volume was low, perhaps the Russians were nevertheless interested in sowing dissent in the German public opinion. In particular, making sure the energy sector is always dependent on some foreign source.
    - someguydave 2y ago
      That plus well developed civilian nuclear power gives the means to developing atomic bombs, and Russia has every reason to fear a nuclear-armed Germany
      - fauigerzigerk 2y ago
        I doubt that this was a major concern as US nuclear weapons have been stationed in Germany since 1960. They remain under US control but the German army is trained to use them in the event of a war. And of course Soviet nuclear weapons used to be stationed in East Germany during the cold war. So for practical purposes Germany was already nuclear-armed. But who knows. This was 15 years after the end of WW2. It wouldn't be too surprising if there had been lingering fears in Russia about what Germany might be up to outside of NATO.
        someguydave 2y ago
        Even aside from WW2 history just simply having more potential threats is bad.
ttepasse 2y ago
Deja Vu: I wrote a comment here some days ago arguing that while Russian/Soviet influence certainly exists public opinion is majorly homegrown: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40331523 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40331523 People from the anglosphere often seem to think that Russian and now Qatari gas is a replacement for the nuclear power, which is rather wrong: The vast majority of Germany's natural gas usage is residential for heating and in industry. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/energy-statistics-data-browser?country=DEU&fuel=Natural%20gas&indicator=NatGasConsBySector https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/energy-st... Gas is hard to replace ad hoc with electricity because you'd have to replace boilers in millions of homes and apartments, a multi-decade infrastructure project.
- someguydave 2y ago
  I have no doubt that the German public is full of true believers. That does not exclude Soviet/Russian influence. I don’t have any solid evidence but the Soviets/Russians had several motives, means and opportunities to spread anti-nuclear influence. Not only would a (West) Germany with abundant cheap nuclear power have energy to compete industrially, they would have the ability to enrich plutonium which might lead to the development of a home-grown nuclear strike capacity within a short range from Moscow. That is, assuming such an idea was politically possible. All energy is fungible. Certainly the cost of switching is not free, but the time to begin doing that was decades ago.
- sofixa 2y ago
  > Gas is hard to replace ad hoc with electricity because you'd have to replace boilers in millions of homes and apartments, a multi-decade infrastructure project The best time to start a multi-decade infrastructure project was multiple decades ago. The second best time is now. Boilers need replacing anyways, so this could have been very gracefully over time.
lionkor 2y ago
I am sure the Americans spent much energy and money to shape the public opinion in Germany to serve their interests.
sofixa 2y ago
Russians and companies interested in perpetuating the dependency on fossil fuels. E.g. Greenpeace Germany had weirdly close links to Gazprom, and was even at one point selling natural gas as "green" and "renewable". Greenpeace Belgium was lobbying for the closing of nuclear power plants and replacing them with gas ones. I find it hard to believe that even Greenpeace could be that blind without external help.
- guenthert 2y ago
  When? I think the timeline matters here. While the effect of CO2 emission on global warming are known (to some extent) for more than a century already, in the eighties and early nineties, it was not a chief concern of the general populace in Europe, while the (perceived or actual) dangers of nuclear energy certainly was.
  - sofixa 2y ago
    I went to primary school (1-4 grade) in the mid 1990s in a small post-communist country. Fossil fuel burning producing emissions bad for your health and harming the planet was something that was a part of the curriculum in like the second or third grade (I remember it vividly because the teacher asked why are trolleybuses better than bused, I was sure it was something to do with the engine, but didn't want to risk embarrassing myself; I was right, and I told myself I should be more confident in myself). If it managed to get into the curriculum of a small post-communist country in the mid-1990s, "green" organisations should have been aware of the impacts of emissions and CO2. And for what it's worth, Greenpeace up until the Russian invasion of Ukraine made it infeasible, was pushing for closing of actively running and already amortised nuclear power plants and replacing them with gas. It's hilariously ironic how one of the most iconic green movements actually ended up causing more damage to the planet on the planetary scale than helping. Sucks for us all that have to live with it though, just because a bunch of blind idiots couldn't be bothered to think.
    - someguydave 2y ago
      If you cannot think for yourself then often someone else will think for you…

Not sure if they sold much gas to Germany during the Soviet times. I really don't know if they did, but it was cold war times then after all.

fauigerzigerk 2y ago
I don't know how much gas they actually sold at the time, but some major oil/gas pipelines were built during the 1960s, 1970s and early 80s. So the intention was clearly there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_in_the_European_energy_sector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_in_the_European_energy_...
- karmakurtisaani 2y ago
  That's interesting. Even if the volume was low, perhaps the Russians were nevertheless interested in sowing dissent in the German public opinion. In particular, making sure the energy sector is always dependent on some foreign source.
  - someguydave 2y ago
    That plus well developed civilian nuclear power gives the means to developing atomic bombs, and Russia has every reason to fear a nuclear-armed Germany
    - fauigerzigerk 2y ago
      I doubt that this was a major concern as US nuclear weapons have been stationed in Germany since 1960. They remain under US control but the German army is trained to use them in the event of a war. And of course Soviet nuclear weapons used to be stationed in East Germany during the cold war. So for practical purposes Germany was already nuclear-armed. But who knows. This was 15 years after the end of WW2. It wouldn't be too surprising if there had been lingering fears in Russia about what Germany might be up to outside of NATO.
      - someguydave 2y ago
        Even aside from WW2 history just simply having more potential threats is bad.

ttepasse 2y ago

Deja Vu: I wrote a comment here some days ago arguing that while Russian/Soviet influence certainly exists public opinion is majorly homegrown: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40331523 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40331523 People from the anglosphere often seem to think that Russian and now Qatari gas is a replacement for the nuclear power, which is rather wrong: The vast majority of Germany's natural gas usage is residential for heating and in industry. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/energy-statistics-data-browser?country=DEU&fuel=Natural%20gas&indicator=NatGasConsBySector https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/energy-st... Gas is hard to replace ad hoc with electricity because you'd have to replace boilers in millions of homes and apartments, a multi-decade infrastructure project.

someguydave 2y ago
I have no doubt that the German public is full of true believers. That does not exclude Soviet/Russian influence. I don’t have any solid evidence but the Soviets/Russians had several motives, means and opportunities to spread anti-nuclear influence. Not only would a (West) Germany with abundant cheap nuclear power have energy to compete industrially, they would have the ability to enrich plutonium which might lead to the development of a home-grown nuclear strike capacity within a short range from Moscow. That is, assuming such an idea was politically possible. All energy is fungible. Certainly the cost of switching is not free, but the time to begin doing that was decades ago.
sofixa 2y ago
> Gas is hard to replace ad hoc with electricity because you'd have to replace boilers in millions of homes and apartments, a multi-decade infrastructure project The best time to start a multi-decade infrastructure project was multiple decades ago. The second best time is now. Boilers need replacing anyways, so this could have been very gracefully over time.

lionkor 2y ago

I am sure the Americans spent much energy and money to shape the public opinion in Germany to serve their interests.

sofixa 2y ago

Russians and companies interested in perpetuating the dependency on fossil fuels. E.g. Greenpeace Germany had weirdly close links to Gazprom, and was even at one point selling natural gas as "green" and "renewable". Greenpeace Belgium was lobbying for the closing of nuclear power plants and replacing them with gas ones. I find it hard to believe that even Greenpeace could be that blind without external help.

guenthert 2y ago
When? I think the timeline matters here. While the effect of CO2 emission on global warming are known (to some extent) for more than a century already, in the eighties and early nineties, it was not a chief concern of the general populace in Europe, while the (perceived or actual) dangers of nuclear energy certainly was.
- sofixa 2y ago
  I went to primary school (1-4 grade) in the mid 1990s in a small post-communist country. Fossil fuel burning producing emissions bad for your health and harming the planet was something that was a part of the curriculum in like the second or third grade (I remember it vividly because the teacher asked why are trolleybuses better than bused, I was sure it was something to do with the engine, but didn't want to risk embarrassing myself; I was right, and I told myself I should be more confident in myself). If it managed to get into the curriculum of a small post-communist country in the mid-1990s, "green" organisations should have been aware of the impacts of emissions and CO2. And for what it's worth, Greenpeace up until the Russian invasion of Ukraine made it infeasible, was pushing for closing of actively running and already amortised nuclear power plants and replacing them with gas. It's hilariously ironic how one of the most iconic green movements actually ended up causing more damage to the planet on the planetary scale than helping. Sucks for us all that have to live with it though, just because a bunch of blind idiots couldn't be bothered to think.
  - someguydave 2y ago
    If you cannot think for yourself then often someone else will think for you…