281–290 of 470 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they’d rather depend on an ally than an openly hostile state. Because the US would massively subsidize LNG exports to EU in order to support their allies?
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, lets destroy the planet together. Frecking is green now
Fossils create a mess in 25 or 100 years. Not stopping Russia can create bigger problems in 1 or 2 years (and it will come on top of existing problems.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is dead for all purposes unless the political climate changes radically. Whatever the Russian plans for a gas supplier to Germany were, they are limited to what the existing pipelines can deliver. I hope, we can reduce the dependency on Russian gas quickly, even if it means the additional effort of shipping LNG from the US or other sources. Mid-term it should be highest priority to get rid of fossil fuels as quick…
>Mid-term it should be highest priority to get rid of fossil fuels as quick as possible. This line of thinking double prices to gas, natural gas and electricity in the last year. Please stop it!
Anyone have thoughts on how this all pans out? I think that the only way out is that Ukraine cuts off its arm to save the head. It acknowledges the territories as lost, and consolidates what it has left. But I'm not sure how they do that without: 1. The current leader losing legitimacy, and likely resigning. 2. Opening the door for other parts of Ukraine to split off. 3. Opening the door to Russia to meddle in other…
A lot of people (on Reddit) are calling SWIFT expulsion as the lever. Also the nord stream 2 seems to be inoperational shutting down number 1 would have shown seriousness. So I don't know the endgame but I think the west has levers it is too chicken to use.
In that sense:
Freezing outside assets might be better to convince the Russian oligarchs to find a peaceful solution: They get their assets back if they can find it. I think Putin being pressured internally by them is probably the best way out of this.
On the other hand, taking outside assets away, or impacting income streams, and a peaceful solution doesn't have the upside anymore. The assets are gone, missed income is gone, and future income is uncertain. They might then support more military action. Out of vengeance, or because they see a better future in there.
Here's some quick numbers I just googled to understand the big picture. This pipeline has an annual capacity of 55 billion cubic meters. It's the same capacity as the Nord Stream 1, which is already in operation. If Germany was truly meaning business, they'd stop Nord Stream 1 the moment Russian boots enter Ukrainian territory. But let's leave that aside. 55 billion cubic meters translate to about 0.6 billion MWh. Th…
> If Germany was truly meaning business, they'd stop Nord Stream 1 If Germany is meaning business, they'd stop buying any gas from Russia. Why would the means how it gets to Germany even matter?
Anyone have thoughts on how this all pans out? I think that the only way out is that Ukraine cuts off its arm to save the head. It acknowledges the territories as lost, and consolidates what it has left. But I'm not sure how they do that without: 1. The current leader losing legitimacy, and likely resigning. 2. Opening the door for other parts of Ukraine to split off. 3. Opening the door to Russia to meddle in other…
> I don't see NATO involving itself militarily. If a US soldier dies defending Ukraine, I think that enough people will ask "why are we shedding American blood for something that has nothing to do with us?" Which is why it's been so stupid of the US and the EU to push for Ukraine's inclusion into the EU & NATO. All it has done is provoke Russia, who doesn't want foreign influence right on its borders and Ukraine isn'…
Similarly for the EU, I don't think the EU strongly cares one way or another, but the EU cannot allow Russia to dictate who's allowed in or not. I don't think it's fair to say "the EU shouldn't let countries try to enter on the basis that Russia won't like it" and somehow it's stupid of them to allow a non-member to dictate who's allowed in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's been dead for a very long time. It's a carrot that Russia was never going to get. If Scholz is smart (which I doubt) he'll restart/keep open the nuclear power plants and cut taxes on gas/electricity for households to neutralise the price hikes.
Nuclear plants are not a real replacement to gas. First of all, a lot of gas gets used for heating - nuclear isn't useful there. Then it is used for providing flexible power, to ramp up and down as quickly as possible to follow the production of renewables. Only a small fraction of the gas goes into "base load" usage. So the government might look into the nuclear power plants to dampen the price level for electricity…
If any of what you say is true at all, how did France survive for so long on nuclear power?
Anyone have thoughts on how this all pans out? I think that the only way out is that Ukraine cuts off its arm to save the head. It acknowledges the territories as lost, and consolidates what it has left. But I'm not sure how they do that without: 1. The current leader losing legitimacy, and likely resigning. 2. Opening the door for other parts of Ukraine to split off. 3. Opening the door to Russia to meddle in other…
There is absolutely nothing Ukraine can do but sit and watch Russia do what it wants. They weren't able to defend their Eastern border back when Russia was pretending to not be involved, let alone when they openly are. This is Crimea all over again; the West will keep making noises while Russia effectively annexes further portions of Ukraine.
- Too little force, which would allow the separatists to de-facto control the territories and lead to a Crimea situation.
- Too much force, which would lead to a Russia invasion triggered by either: Russians dying in Ukraine (since some Russian soldiers were in the region "on vacation") or conflict on the Ukrainian-Russian border (either accidental, or false flag).
I'm just trying to figure out what Ukraine can do aside from let itself get gobbled up. Holding its ground while the economic sanctions/protracted warfare eats into Russian morale might work, or it might take too long. Not sure what else will work though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, you were talking about Ukraine specifically, not dislocating your troops in other countries, where the local population doesn't want you, 'cause you have the upper hand. My bad.
I’d argue that the local populations are largely very happy with US presence in Europe. I know they’re very popular in Romania, being big spenders. Outside of Europe the US has obviously been up to a bunch of nasty shit, but I think we are talking about European decisionmaking here.
Not in Germany, where they have their biggest presence: https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/deutsche-finden-a...
Nor in Italy, where they have the second-biggest presence. But it is easy to understand, considering they kill civilians for fun, but get processed in US[0], and are responsible for countless violences in the cities where their bases are[1].
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Cavalese_cable_car_crash [1]: https://www.vice.com/it/article/znjkke/vicenza-soldati-usa-s...