341–350 of 613 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 to "enforce peace". Same with Crimea in 2014. Then Luhansk and Donetsk a few days ago. Now the rest of Ukraine. Discussion with Putin is futile. When Russia started sending troops next to the Ukraine borders, NATO and especially USA should have responded by sending two thousands soldiers to Kiev. It's too late now.
Next up is Finland. Also not a NATO member.
https://oec.world/en/profile/country/rus Russia’s exports are >50% oil and gas products. The biggest retaliation the West can make right now is a commitment to a rapid exit at unprecedented speed from the oil economy, in favor of renewables.
> The biggest retaliation the West can make right now is a commitment to a rapid exit at unprecedented speed from the oil economy, in favor of renewables. You can't exit from the oil economy with renewable such as wind or solar due to their non-predictability. If you want to stop importing Russian gaz, you need nuclear energy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But also a country with a history of coming to terms with the USSR, and notably one that didn't receive a NATO membership invitation guarantee (working of Wikipedia). Ukraine and Georgia did, both also want to join NATO. Finland has no such plans (again, working of Wikipedia).
Having just watched the Finnish president and prime minister address the situation, the press' pressing questions about joining NATO were continually downplayed, as is customary. Finland is almost militantly neutral, since that was the original condition to independence in the first place. On the other hand, Russia just voided the Minsk agreement with Ukraine to attack, so... Imagine being Russia's border neighbor, m…
https://oec.world/en/profile/country/rus Russia’s exports are >50% oil and gas products. The biggest retaliation the West can make right now is a commitment to a rapid exit at unprecedented speed from the oil economy, in favor of renewables.
> The biggest retaliation the West can make right now is a commitment to a rapid exit at unprecedented speed from the oil economy, in favor of renewables. You can't exit from the oil economy with renewable such as wind or solar due to their non-predictability. If you want to stop importing Russian gaz, you need nuclear energy.
https://oec.world/en/profile/country/rus Russia’s exports are >50% oil and gas products. The biggest retaliation the West can make right now is a commitment to a rapid exit at unprecedented speed from the oil economy, in favor of renewables.
> The biggest retaliation the West can make right now is a commitment to a rapid exit at unprecedented speed from the oil economy, in favor of renewables. You can't exit from the oil economy with renewable such as wind or solar due to their non-predictability. If you want to stop importing Russian gaz, you need nuclear energy.
And even if it was nuclear is not a viable response with new projects taking decades to develop. Todays nuclear industry is delivering warmed-up 1970s technology that is expensive, slow, and inflexible.
Solar/wind/batteries with a small amount of backup capacity from hydro, power-to-gas/fuel, biofuels, or new long-duration storage is cheaper and faster to deploy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's basically a Mexican standoff, right? In the timeframe of months to years, Europe needs to buy Russian oil and gas as much as Russia needs to sell them. Neither side can unilaterally break off the relationship without suffering massive harm. Getting to full energy independence with renewables is a project that will take a decade or more, not something that you can do in the timeframe of the current conflict.
> Getting to full energy independence with renewables is a project that will take a decade or more. Try at least 2-3 decades. Personally I'm still a firm believer in nuclear power.
For example, the Blue Castle project in Utah (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Castle_Project) started on the drawing board in 2007, started looking for contractors in 2016, hopes to start construction in 2023 and hopes to be fully operational in 2030. That is if construction is not delayed in any way, which seems unlikely given the schedule so far tbh.
The US alone has over 200 coal plants operating today, so even if the new nuclear plant would be on average twice as large you would need more than a hundred new nuclear power plants. It seems wildly unlikely that they could be constructed within three decades.
Also that is in the US alone, a country with a relatively large knowledge base surrounding all things nuclear. Most of the rest of the world has no chance of replacing even a fraction of their power generation needs with nuclear, so for them renewables will be the way to go.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Ukraine in NATO means US nukes on Russia border, tipping the balance. No, it does not. A number of Eastern European countries are in NATO and none of them have American nuclear weapons. Where does this silly idea come that after joining NATO, American missiles somehow appear in the new member? Modern-day NATO is a cooperation platform for joint exercises etc, not some missile club that starts delivering ICBMs every…
> No, it does not. A number of Eastern Europe countries are in NATO and none of them have American nuclear weapons. Yet. There were murmurs about moving them from Germany to Eastern Europe. Additionally - US has DCAs (Defense Cooperation Agreement; straightly bilateral, nothing to do with NATO) with most EE countries. Nobody knows, what they brought there, US is certainly not telling anyone. The nukes might be alread…
And Russia is big, they have an immense second strike capability from land and from the sea. Wladiwostok is 8000km away from Kiev.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The position is understandable because Russia is playing a Grand Strategy Game in the past, and doesn't want the enemy ( NATO) to be at all their borders. Justified? Right? Humane? Absolutely not.
Then invading Ukraine wouldn't make Russia getting more borders with more NATO members whose now would be very angry about russia and will do whatever they could to make things difficult?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The biggest retaliation the West can make right now is a commitment to a rapid exit at unprecedented speed from the oil economy, in favor of renewables. You can't exit from the oil economy with renewable such as wind or solar due to their non-predictability. If you want to stop importing Russian gaz, you need nuclear energy.
40% of EU gas is from Russia (and co.). Let's instead switch to nuclear where 60% of EU supply comes from Russia (and co.).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with this analysis is that it's not 24 hours ago any more and Russia has started shelling Kyiv, which only makes sense if Russia is planning to take control of the entire country. Also let's drop the propaganda line of "protection". Luhansk and Donetsk may have declared independence but we generally don't tend to recognize such claims unless they are affirmed by the host nation. It's also an open secret t…
Not approving any of this, from the recognition of the republics to the further attacks and yeah he's obviously gone beyond that protecting the people and is striking Ukraine's army too. I hope that it doesnt lead to a more widespread war.