Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Italy, Belgium set to lose gas supply after biggest LNG plant bombed

politico.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 131 posts

Re: Italy, Belgium set to lose gas supply after biggest LNG plant bombed

#101

Post by sam_lowry_ »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #50
Joeri wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority of Belgium’s electricity comes from nuclear, wind and solar. They have been greatly expanding wind parks in the north sea, and they’re in the early stages of deploying SMRs. But the reality is that Belgium still needs a lot of natural gas for electricity production and its large chemical industry, and that all of this gas has to be imported. Long term there is the European hydrogen strategy which aims to…

Europe could produce plenty of gas but refuses to. Let's not forget that.

Groningen gas field

Re: Italy, Belgium set to lose gas supply after biggest LNG plant bombed

#102

Post by mopsi »

drysine wrote: post #97
troupo wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He lied.[0] No one wants to look like a fool. Your oft-cited link doesn't support the "100% NATO said they wouldn't expand" and it's a verbal statement that wasn't even ratified anywhere. Unlike, you know, multiple treaties Russia has with, say, Ukraine. But if you're holding verbal agreements in such high esteem, Putin himself said he doesn't care if Ukraine joins NATO. > Pro-Western Ukrainian president submitted…

I gave you a link to the video where former American ambassador to the USSR is saying "though it was not a legally binding assurance, we gave categorical assurances to Gorbachev, back when the Soviet Union existed, that if a United Germany was able to stay in NATO, NATO would not be moved eastward". You argue like you haven't seen it. >just some the NATO members were positive That's not true, the alliance itself gave…

  > I gave you a link to the video where former American ambassador to the USSR is saying "though it was not a legally binding assurance, we gave categorical assurances to Gorbachev, back when the Soviet Union existed, that if a United Germany was able to stay in NATO, NATO would not be moved eastward".
Eduard Shevardnadze, the USSR's minister of foreign affairs at the time, clarified that the context was the potential stationing of foreign NATO troops (US, UK, etc) in East Germany after reunification. There was nowhere further "east" to move at the time, since East Germany bordered the Warsaw Pact. German reunification was agreed upon with the understanding that foreign troops would not be moved directly to the border with the Warsaw Pact, because the Pact had not yet had time to establish military infrastructure after retreating from East Germany. That was the agreement and parties adhered to it.

Shevardnadze also said that in 1990, it was unimaginable to the Soviet leadership that the Warsaw Pact and the USSR itself would dissolve. Therefore, there was no reason to discuss potential NATO membership of countries and territories that were under Soviet control at the time. And according to him, this was indeed not discussed at all during his tenure (1985-1991); not internally, and not with foreign partners either.

The putinesque sob story that NATO promised never to accept any new members is an anachronistic perversion of these events.

Re: Italy, Belgium set to lose gas supply after biggest LNG plant bombed

#103

Post by troupo »

drysine wrote: post #97
troupo wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He lied.[0] No one wants to look like a fool. Your oft-cited link doesn't support the "100% NATO said they wouldn't expand" and it's a verbal statement that wasn't even ratified anywhere. Unlike, you know, multiple treaties Russia has with, say, Ukraine. But if you're holding verbal agreements in such high esteem, Putin himself said he doesn't care if Ukraine joins NATO. > Pro-Western Ukrainian president submitted…

I gave you a link to the video where former American ambassador to the USSR is saying "though it was not a legally binding assurance, we gave categorical assurances to Gorbachev, back when the Soviet Union existed, that if a United Germany was able to stay in NATO, NATO would not be moved eastward". You argue like you haven't seen it. >just some the NATO members were positive That's not true, the alliance itself gave…

> though it was not a legally binding assurance

Oh no, really?

> The polls consistently showed that, but it hadn't stopped Yuschenko from submitting the request.

Oh no, so you are hellbent on clearly ignoring the opposition to the request, the protests, and keep framing this as "Ukraine wanted to join NATO". Even though Ukrainian parliament was literally blocked by the issue and it was not allowed to continue further? Or that multiple NATO members opposed Ukrainian membership (you have to get approval from all NATO members)? Or that the whole thing was derailed by Russian involvement in Georgia?

> And this dismissive attitude towards legitimate security concerns of Russia led to the current situation.

I've yet to see you assign any responsibility to Russia for its actions.

> You forgot to quote "Just like".

1. you have to actually provide a source that what happened in Ukraine was a coup. Hint: Ukrainians are quite happy to remove anyone in power through popular movements

2. I clearly literally described what Russia was doing. You keep trying to move the discussion to your own very narrow (and quite invalid) definition of a coup.

3. I've yet to see you assign any reponisbility to Russia for Russia's actions. Russia is blameless, spotless, and purely justified in its 4-year invasion of Ukraine.

Re: Italy, Belgium set to lose gas supply after biggest LNG plant bombed

#105

Post by drysine »

troupo wrote: post #103
drysine wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I gave you a link to the video where former American ambassador to the USSR is saying "though it was not a legally binding assurance, we gave categorical assurances to Gorbachev, back when the Soviet Union existed, that if a United Germany was able to stay in NATO, NATO would not be moved eastward". You argue like you haven't seen it. >just some the NATO members were positive That's not true, the alliance itself gave…

> though it was not a legally binding assurance Oh no, really? > The polls consistently showed that, but it hadn't stopped Yuschenko from submitting the request. Oh no, so you are hellbent on clearly ignoring the opposition to the request, the protests, and keep framing this as "Ukraine wanted to join NATO". Even though Ukrainian parliament was literally blocked by the issue and it was not allowed to continue further…

>Oh no, really?

Maybe you should reread my first comment?

I'm not interested in arguing for the sake of arguing

Re: Italy, Belgium set to lose gas supply after biggest LNG plant bombed

#106

Post by troupo »

drysine wrote: post #105
troupo wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> though it was not a legally binding assurance Oh no, really? > The polls consistently showed that, but it hadn't stopped Yuschenko from submitting the request. Oh no, so you are hellbent on clearly ignoring the opposition to the request, the protests, and keep framing this as "Ukraine wanted to join NATO". Even though Ukrainian parliament was literally blocked by the issue and it was not allowed to continue further…

>Oh no, really? Maybe you should reread my first comment? I'm not interested in arguing for the sake of arguing

Yes, yes you do.

If there's no legally binding assurance, why are you holding on to it as if it was? While completely ignoring actual legally binding assurances like "Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation" that literally establishes things like "inviolability of existing borders, and respect for territorial integrity" and "prevents Ukraine and Russia from invading one another's country respectively, and declaring war"?

I see that you still absolve Russia of literally any and all responsibility for its actions.

Re: Italy, Belgium set to lose gas supply after biggest LNG plant bombed

#107

Post by troupo »

_aavaa_ wrote: post #96
troupo wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nuclear takes like 15 years to build 6-7 years. France built 40 its nuclear reactors in a decade, at 6-7 years per reactor. Right now China is building reactors at 6-7 years per reactor. --- start quote --- Nearly every Chinese nuclear project that has entered service since 2010 has achieved construction in 7 years or less. Every single conventional commercial-scale reactor project in Chinese history has achieved c…

At the start of 2025 China didn’t manage to reach their 2020 nuclear target, much less their 2025. Meanwhile they met their 2030 target. Look at their total extra energy generation (including capacity factor) comparing renewables and nuclear: https://cleantechnica.com/2023/02/06/renewables-in-china-tre... The actual lesson here is that beyond a small reserve, the case for nuclear is non existent (unless proponents ar…

> The actual lesson here is that beyond a small reserve, the case for nuclear is non existent

Except you know, minor things like base load, energy spikes etc.

Re: Italy, Belgium set to lose gas supply after biggest LNG plant bombed

#108

Post by scoofy »

fsh wrote: post #40
Joeri wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority of Belgium’s electricity comes from nuclear, wind and solar. They have been greatly expanding wind parks in the north sea, and they’re in the early stages of deploying SMRs. But the reality is that Belgium still needs a lot of natural gas for electricity production and its large chemical industry, and that all of this gas has to be imported. Long term there is the European hydrogen strategy which aims to…

The real problem are transport and heating. In most countries, those consume significantly more primary energy than the electricity sector and are still mostly fossil fueled. For example, more than half of the primary energy consumed in France is oil and gas. Heat pumps and electric vehicles or trains can now finally change this, but the transition is very slow.

A heatpump in every home!

Re: Italy, Belgium set to lose gas supply after biggest LNG plant bombed

#109

Post by drysine »

troupo wrote: post #106
drysine wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Oh no, really? Maybe you should reread my first comment? I'm not interested in arguing for the sake of arguing

Yes, yes you do. If there's no legally binding assurance, why are you holding on to it as if it was? While completely ignoring actual legally binding assurances like "Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation" that literally establishes things like "inviolability of existing borders, and respect for territorial integrity" and "prevents Ukraine and Russia from invadi…

You really should reread my first comment.

As for the treaty you could read other articles in that treaty[0] while you at it:

Article 6

Each High Contracting Party shall refrain from participating in, or supporting, any actions directed against the other High Contracting Party, and shall not conclude any treaties with third countries against the other Party. Neither Party shall allow its territory to be used to the detriment of the security of the other Party.

Article 7

If a situation arises which, in the opinion of one of the High Contracting Parties, poses a threat to peace, violates the peace or affects the interests of its national security, sovereignty or territorial integrity, it may propose to the other High Contracting Party that consultations on the subject be held without delay. The States shall exchange relevant information and, if necessary, carry out coordinated or joint measures with a view to overcoming the situation

Article 11

The High Contracting Parties shall, in their territory, take the necessary measures, including the adoption of appropriate legislative acts, to prevent and suppress any activities that constitute an incitement to violence or violence against individuals or groups of citizens, based on national, racial, ethnic or religious intolerance.

Article 12

The High Contracting Parties shall protect the ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious diversity of ethnic minorities in their territory and shall create conditions that encourage such diversity. Each High Contracting Party shall guarantee the right of persons belonging to ethnic minorities, individually or together with other persons belonging to ethnic minorities, freely to express, preserve and develop their ethnic, cultural, linguistic or religious diversity and promote and develop their culture without being subjected to any attempts to assimilate them against their will.

[0] https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/b7nedx/pdf

Re: Italy, Belgium set to lose gas supply after biggest LNG plant bombed

#110

Post by troupo »

drysine wrote: post #109
troupo wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, yes you do. If there's no legally binding assurance, why are you holding on to it as if it was? While completely ignoring actual legally binding assurances like "Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation" that literally establishes things like "inviolability of existing borders, and respect for territorial integrity" and "prevents Ukraine and Russia from invadi…

You really should reread my first comment. As for the treaty you could read other articles in that treaty[0] while you at it: Article 6 Each High Contracting Party shall refrain from participating in, or supporting, any actions directed against the other High Contracting Party, and shall not conclude any treaties with third countries against the other Party. Neither Party shall allow its territory to be used to the d…

So:

1. Ukraine had a very strong ipposition to joining NATO prior to 2014. And according to Putin himself, other countries (Ukraine, Sweden, Finland etc.) joining NATO is those countries' own decision and he's okay with it. If he was against it, has he called any consultation etc.? No he didnt't. He waited until all the way of the end if Yanukovich's term to bribe him... to not sign association agreement with the EU (not even NATO).

As it turns out, Ukraine should've joined NATO waaaay before 2014.

2. Any "action to affect security" calls for a consultation. Russia instead invaded and grabbed Crimea, and invaded and made Donbass a permanent gray zone. And then started a full-scale invasion

3. Protection of culture etc. is literally enshrined in Ukranian Constitution. Even now you can speak Russian freely in Ukraine despite the war.

To the point that National Russian Drama Theater didn't change its name or repertoire until Russia's invasion.

See how you keep absolving Russia of literally any responsibility.

Post reply on HN