4 ms·
Was that not clear from the beginning? Nobody ever claimed it was for strategic purposes, the narrative was "we don't like nuclear anything, we will get rid of
by CjHuber 9mo ago
Was that not clear from the beginning? Nobody ever claimed it was for strategic purposes, the narrative was "we don't like nuclear anything, we will get rid of it we can bear the costs".
So I don't think you could even call it a strategic mistake, but masochism maybe?
Especially while keeping the exit date in the height of the fallout of a real strategic mistake, the dependence on cheap russian gas.
- 4gotunameagain 9mo agoMy money is on Russian meddling, to make Germany dependent or Russian gas. Which happened. Until the US blew up the pipeline, and now Germany is dependent on US gas.
- Torwald 9mo agoYou mean the Green party was undermined by Russians? The Green party had the goal of de-nuclearization from the beginning, at that time the Soviet Union was still in existence. When the Green party came to power and negotiated the nuclear exit, they did not need any external motivation to do so. The only way I can see this being Russian meddling would be the Green party being infiltrated from Russia from the beginning. If you have sources that point to the Green party being undermined by Soviet/Russian espionage or some such, please point me torwards them.
- decimalenough 9mo agoNot sure why you're blaming the Greens here, they're a second-tier party in Germany and weren't even a part of the governing coalition during Fukushima and the decision to completely exit nuclear.
- Torwald 9mo agoThe Green party and the Social Democrats were the governing coalition that enacted the nuclear exit. Sure, it was completed by the other two big parties after Fukushima, but by that time the exit was already underway in practice.
- tlb 9mo agoThe opposite. The (unsubstantiated and probably false) claim is that the Green party was helped or funded by Russian energy companies, who benefited by Germany shutting down its nuclear plants.
- mosura 9mo agoPeople have completely memory holed how bizarrely pro everything Russia the EU was from 2000-2015.
- jorvi 9mo agoSeems you have memory holed how pro Russia the US was too. You guys had joint military exercises. Why single out the EU as being bad? What you seem to also have memory holed was that up until Crimea, the prevailing idea for Russia was that the more we trade with them, the more wealthy and informed the populace becomes and the more entwined the economy becomes globally and thus losing that access would become too painful to them. The exact same playbook was used for China up till 2016.
- mosura 9mo ago> Seems you have memory holed how pro Russia the US was too. Interesting inference to draw. > The exact same playbook was used for China up till 2016 Nope.
- panick21_ 9mo agoThat's nonsense. Large parts of the German Left has been incredibly anti-nuclear for 40+ years. And by the 80s they killed further investment. And by the 90s it was clear that nuclear was temporary and was going to be killed. The right was never anti-nuclear, but they were more pro-gas and pro-coal.
- grunder_advice 9mo agoIt was a populist move because a big chunk of the electorate is German moms and German grandmas who are absolutely terrified of radiation post Chernobyl.
- croes 9mo agoThe operator companies are also in favor of the exit because it’s too expensive
- adamors 9mo agoAlso post Fukushima.
- grunder_advice 9mo agoFukushima sure, but a lot of women were traumatized by Chernobyl and the news of a cloud of radioactive dust that was going to give them all cancer. I think Fukushima just reingnited those fears.
- account42 9mo agoBut that fear is also largely manufactured by the government through publicly funded television/radio.
- grunder_advice 9mo ago
- znpy 9mo agoI’d call it stupidity rather than masochism. It wasn’t that hard to see that energy needs were only going to increase rather than diminish. And not because of ai datacenters, but (to make a simple example) for example because of the already ongoing at the time push for the electrification of the automotive industry. It’s also crazy that the initiative was supposed at all by environmentalists. Anyway, props to Mertz for admitting the mistake, we’ll see if they will fix it somehow.
- CjHuber 9mo agoAnyway, props to Mertz for admitting the mistake, we’ll see if they will fix it somehow That‘s the thing. Everyone knew it was costly, nobody ever thought it was good strategically. If he now says it’s a „strategic mistake“ that‘s laughable, did he think it was strategically clever before? If so he was the only one. The whole issue is that Germany overestimated its own resilience and economic power, which is deteriorating. Of course environmentalists knew that this is not good for the economy but the Green Party is mostly left aligned they were ok with incurring some damage to the economy for their cause, after all that’s their whole point. But they thought well we are such a economic powerhouse anyway, we can do it. So the real strategic mistake was arrogance. And saying that particular action was a „strategic mistake“ instead reflecting on the whole self-image of the country, shows that exactly this arrogance persists
- croes 9mo agoWhere is the stupidity? Do you think companies who couldn’t built a safe airport or train station can suddenly built something more complex like a nuclear power plant without massively going over budget, construction time and safety? And I guess nobody fears Russian drone flying over WECs instead of nuclear power plants
- panick21_ 9mo agoNonsense. The Greens and all the anti-nuclear were absolutely convinced and never stopped screaming that nuclear was absurdly expensive and the energy price would go down. They over and over again claimed nuclear was bad financially.
- croes 9mo agoNope, the reason is, we can’t guarantee the power plants are safe, we don’t have a final storage for nuclear waste and it too expensive. Fun fact, the ministers of the federal states that are most in favor of nuclear power do not want a final waste storage.