|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 01 2022 16:30 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2022 08:17 LegalLord wrote:
It's cute, and accelerating transition to green is a good thing, but replacing natural gas with green energy on an accelerated schedule is a pipe dream (heh). I say this a lot, but the real solution to energy independence is not green energy, but coal and fracking. Saying "fuck the environment" is definitely a strategy, and it can get you energy independence, but if everybody does it we all lose.
The two problems with renewable energy are always going to be geography and consistency. Geographically - you don't want to put solar panels where there's a lot of cloud cover on a regular basis or windmills in places that aren't windy. And you'd better hope those power sources are close to places that use a lot of power, or else power transmission becomes expensive. On consistency - sunny days (or months) and hurricane-level winds produce more power than wintry and windless ones. Batteries are garbage at scale, so something like hydrogen might be good, but that's absurdly inefficient to make greenly (via electrolysis). To be fair it sounds like these are the exact problems they're trying to solve, but if the technology (in the sense of efficient engineering design, not basic science) isn't there in 2022 then the large-scale infrastructure won't be in 2035.
Also remember that there's four energy sources at play here that have various priorities to get rid of - coal, Russian gas, LNG, and nuclear. Russian gas is at least in the top two (competing w/ nuclear) among those options. Is the strategy going to be "more emphasis on renewable energy so we can shed Russian gas, but keep dirtier fuels?" If so, the real strategy is you're keeping more coal up and running. LNG as an alternative to Russian gas is an option, and Europe is definitely going to push more towards that (as they already have) but the price difference is substantial, and you need many years to make that happen at a large scale even if you're willing to dump hundreds of billions in extra expenditure.
I can say this pretty confidently because this is exactly what was said in 2014, and it turns out that when you make stupid transition plans you win stupid prizes as happened in the 2021-present time period. Which means not just gas but desperately backtracking on coal as well. In the long run you can and do want to avoid dependence on a single supplier, but the only way to be both green and Russia-free in the short term (5 years absolute minimum, but realistically more like 15-20) is to decide that you don't really want to have an economy.
It's currently in the interest of all involved that "the gas must flow." Maybe not the US since they want to sell overpriced LNG, but really no one else. And yes, the truth here is quite an ugly one but that's commodities for you. You will find that even in wartime, Ukraine and Russia cooperated to make sure that more gas flows through than it did in the prewar days. Show nested quote +
SPM.D.5.3 The cumulative scientific evidence is unequivocal: Climate change is a threat to human well-being
and planetary health. Any further delay in concerted anticipatory global action on adaptation and mitigation
will miss a brief and rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all.
(very high confidence)
It's funny, but fuck the environment because it's complicated or too expensive is not an option. Suddenly your whole post is obsolete, albeit pointing out various challenges of building a sustainable energy supply that I wholeheartedly agree with. Though not with your delineation of the next steps.
I'm with you on the importance of climate change and addressing it. All I'm saying is that the premise - energy independence by way of renewables - is a feel-good fantasy because you are trying to satisfy two very different, and very complex, problem without really thinking it through. And all that leads to is a sharp step backwards that will look like a lost decade of attempted progress because the strategy backfires in a severe way.
Open disregard for the environment is absolutely a strategy that will allow for better ability to address energy independence. The downside is everyone loses in the long run, but it does provide better energy security for now.
But what I see is something that reminds me of "buy a Tesla save the environment" mentality - wishful thinking that encourages a climate-dangerous core behavior (consumerism), to do something notionally green (buy EV), but that when you look at it closely it's actually significantly worse for both practical purposes and for having any chance of being useful to the intended goal of saving the environment. More mundane, practical alternatives with none of the cover appeal (e.g. buses) would serve the goal better.
And that's what happens when you say "more green investment will let us stop using gas faster." The cover appeal is beautiful, but the reality is uglier. You have to start making terrible choices, like:
1. Am I willing to prioritize getting rid of gas dependency over ending the dirtiest fuel, coal?
2. Am I willing to accept a significantly reduced economy (think pandemic-era shutdown but permanent) to reduce general demand on power?
3. Am I willing to accept rolling blackouts as a standard part of life to accommodate the reduced reliability of a pure-renewable power supply?
The answers to these questions are not pretty. And to be frank, I've seen far less acknowledgment of that from the architects of these green policies than propaganda about how we should greenify everything as if it's just a simple matter like that.
|
Norway28665 Posts
On March 01 2022 17:29 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2022 16:30 Artisreal wrote:On March 01 2022 08:17 LegalLord wrote:
It's cute, and accelerating transition to green is a good thing, but replacing natural gas with green energy on an accelerated schedule is a pipe dream (heh). I say this a lot, but the real solution to energy independence is not green energy, but coal and fracking. Saying "fuck the environment" is definitely a strategy, and it can get you energy independence, but if everybody does it we all lose.
The two problems with renewable energy are always going to be geography and consistency. Geographically - you don't want to put solar panels where there's a lot of cloud cover on a regular basis or windmills in places that aren't windy. And you'd better hope those power sources are close to places that use a lot of power, or else power transmission becomes expensive. On consistency - sunny days (or months) and hurricane-level winds produce more power than wintry and windless ones. Batteries are garbage at scale, so something like hydrogen might be good, but that's absurdly inefficient to make greenly (via electrolysis). To be fair it sounds like these are the exact problems they're trying to solve, but if the technology (in the sense of efficient engineering design, not basic science) isn't there in 2022 then the large-scale infrastructure won't be in 2035.
Also remember that there's four energy sources at play here that have various priorities to get rid of - coal, Russian gas, LNG, and nuclear. Russian gas is at least in the top two (competing w/ nuclear) among those options. Is the strategy going to be "more emphasis on renewable energy so we can shed Russian gas, but keep dirtier fuels?" If so, the real strategy is you're keeping more coal up and running. LNG as an alternative to Russian gas is an option, and Europe is definitely going to push more towards that (as they already have) but the price difference is substantial, and you need many years to make that happen at a large scale even if you're willing to dump hundreds of billions in extra expenditure.
I can say this pretty confidently because this is exactly what was said in 2014, and it turns out that when you make stupid transition plans you win stupid prizes as happened in the 2021-present time period. Which means not just gas but desperately backtracking on coal as well. In the long run you can and do want to avoid dependence on a single supplier, but the only way to be both green and Russia-free in the short term (5 years absolute minimum, but realistically more like 15-20) is to decide that you don't really want to have an economy.
It's currently in the interest of all involved that "the gas must flow." Maybe not the US since they want to sell overpriced LNG, but really no one else. And yes, the truth here is quite an ugly one but that's commodities for you. You will find that even in wartime, Ukraine and Russia cooperated to make sure that more gas flows through than it did in the prewar days.
SPM.D.5.3 The cumulative scientific evidence is unequivocal: Climate change is a threat to human well-being
and planetary health. Any further delay in concerted anticipatory global action on adaptation and mitigation
will miss a brief and rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all.
(very high confidence)
It's funny, but fuck the environment because it's complicated or too expensive is not an option. Suddenly your whole post is obsolete, albeit pointing out various challenges of building a sustainable energy supply that I wholeheartedly agree with. Though not with your delineation of the next steps. I'm with you on the importance of climate change and addressing it. All I'm saying is that the premise - energy independence by way of renewables - is a feel-good fantasy because you are trying to satisfy two very different, and very complex, problem without really thinking it through. And all that leads to is a sharp step backwards that will look like a lost decade of attempted progress because the strategy backfires in a severe way. Open disregard for the environment is absolutely a strategy that will allow for better ability to address energy independence. The downside is everyone loses in the long run, but it does provide better energy security for now. But what I see is something that reminds me of "buy a Tesla save the environment" mentality - wishful thinking that encourages a climate-dangerous core behavior (consumerism), to do something notionally green (buy EV), but that when you look at it closely it's actually significantly worse for both practical purposes and for having any chance of being useful to the intended goal of saving the environment. More mundane, practical alternatives with none of the cover appeal (e.g. buses) would serve the goal better. And that's what happens when you say "more green investment will let us stop using gas faster." The cover appeal is beautiful, but the reality is uglier. You have to start making terrible choices, like: 1. Am I willing to prioritize getting rid of gas dependency over ending the dirtiest fuel, coal? 2. Am I willing to accept a significantly reduced economy (think pandemic-era shutdown but permanent) to reduce general demand on power? 3. Am I willing to accept rolling blackouts as a standard part of life to accommodate the reduced reliability of a pure-renewable power supply? The answers to these questions are not pretty. And to be frank, I've seen far less acknowledgment of that from the architects of these green policies than propaganda about how we should greenify everything as if it's just a simple matter like that.
This post I like, and it does ask relevant questions. I think a lot of people have been trying to make the 'green shift' palatable, by making it seem like 'you can still live your consumer lifestyle, you just have to consume environmentally friendly stuff instead!!', while the reality is that no, us western folk cannot keep living life as we know it without drastically impacting the environment, and cutting fossil fuels to the degree they need to be cut at the rate they need to be cut is going to impact the availability of stuff we've grown accustomed to find essential.
I've been guilty of it myself, tbh, but more so in the past. The notion that the slow, gradual change that can be achieved within a consumerist economy is sufficient to avoid the most dire consequences might have been true if this slow, gradual change actually started happening a couple decades ago, but now, much has to happen in the next 10 years, and we're not on track to get there.
|
On March 01 2022 17:29 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2022 16:30 Artisreal wrote:On March 01 2022 08:17 LegalLord wrote:
It's cute, and accelerating transition to green is a good thing, but replacing natural gas with green energy on an accelerated schedule is a pipe dream (heh). I say this a lot, but the real solution to energy independence is not green energy, but coal and fracking. Saying "fuck the environment" is definitely a strategy, and it can get you energy independence, but if everybody does it we all lose.
The two problems with renewable energy are always going to be geography and consistency. Geographically - you don't want to put solar panels where there's a lot of cloud cover on a regular basis or windmills in places that aren't windy. And you'd better hope those power sources are close to places that use a lot of power, or else power transmission becomes expensive. On consistency - sunny days (or months) and hurricane-level winds produce more power than wintry and windless ones. Batteries are garbage at scale, so something like hydrogen might be good, but that's absurdly inefficient to make greenly (via electrolysis). To be fair it sounds like these are the exact problems they're trying to solve, but if the technology (in the sense of efficient engineering design, not basic science) isn't there in 2022 then the large-scale infrastructure won't be in 2035.
Also remember that there's four energy sources at play here that have various priorities to get rid of - coal, Russian gas, LNG, and nuclear. Russian gas is at least in the top two (competing w/ nuclear) among those options. Is the strategy going to be "more emphasis on renewable energy so we can shed Russian gas, but keep dirtier fuels?" If so, the real strategy is you're keeping more coal up and running. LNG as an alternative to Russian gas is an option, and Europe is definitely going to push more towards that (as they already have) but the price difference is substantial, and you need many years to make that happen at a large scale even if you're willing to dump hundreds of billions in extra expenditure.
I can say this pretty confidently because this is exactly what was said in 2014, and it turns out that when you make stupid transition plans you win stupid prizes as happened in the 2021-present time period. Which means not just gas but desperately backtracking on coal as well. In the long run you can and do want to avoid dependence on a single supplier, but the only way to be both green and Russia-free in the short term (5 years absolute minimum, but realistically more like 15-20) is to decide that you don't really want to have an economy.
It's currently in the interest of all involved that "the gas must flow." Maybe not the US since they want to sell overpriced LNG, but really no one else. And yes, the truth here is quite an ugly one but that's commodities for you. You will find that even in wartime, Ukraine and Russia cooperated to make sure that more gas flows through than it did in the prewar days.
SPM.D.5.3 The cumulative scientific evidence is unequivocal: Climate change is a threat to human well-being
and planetary health. Any further delay in concerted anticipatory global action on adaptation and mitigation
will miss a brief and rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all.
(very high confidence)
It's funny, but fuck the environment because it's complicated or too expensive is not an option. Suddenly your whole post is obsolete, albeit pointing out various challenges of building a sustainable energy supply that I wholeheartedly agree with. Though not with your delineation of the next steps. I'm with you on the importance of climate change and addressing it. All I'm saying is that the premise - energy independence by way of renewables - is a feel-good fantasy because you are trying to satisfy two very different, and very complex, problem without really thinking it through. And all that leads to is a sharp step backwards that will look like a lost decade of attempted progress because the strategy backfires in a severe way. Open disregard for the environment is absolutely a strategy that will allow for better ability to address energy independence. The downside is everyone loses in the long run, but it does provide better energy security for now. But what I see is something that reminds me of "buy a Tesla save the environment" mentality - wishful thinking that encourages a climate-dangerous core behavior (consumerism), to do something notionally green (buy EV), but that when you look at it closely it's actually significantly worse for both practical purposes and for having any chance of being useful to the intended goal of saving the environment. More mundane, practical alternatives with none of the cover appeal (e.g. buses) would serve the goal better. And that's what happens when you say "more green investment will let us stop using gas faster." The cover appeal is beautiful, but the reality is uglier. You have to start making terrible choices, like: 1. Am I willing to prioritize getting rid of gas dependency over ending the dirtiest fuel, coal? 2. Am I willing to accept a significantly reduced economy (think pandemic-era shutdown but permanent) to reduce general demand on power? 3. Am I willing to accept rolling blackouts as a standard part of life to accommodate the reduced reliability of a pure-renewable power supply? The answers to these questions are not pretty. And to be frank, I've seen far less acknowledgment of that from the architects of these green policies than propaganda about how we should greenify everything as if it's just a simple matter like that.
I wonder where I wrote about energy independence? really not sure where you got that idea from.
Maybe from synthetic fuels? We need that. If only for storage reasons and for machinery where electrification isnt possible. There is zero doubt about that. Someone has to start scaling up at a loss and why not the country that benefits the most from the EU?
Think I made it quite clear that it's about as fast a transition to renews as possible using the assets we still have in other countries. If we backpeddal on renews, we cannot lay the groundwork for the technological and organisational forethought of an energy union.
That requires to significantly change how we produce, use and trade energy.
But anyhow, I'm not sure what you're alluding to RE: energy independence or the first paragraph of your post if I'm honest.
Open disregard for the environment is what is reserved for emerging nations in respect to climate fairness.
We have had our share, we have to move forward and use our economic power to do that. Because we cannot (!) continue. See my metaphor.
Your aside against Tesla is well warranted. But it misses my statements by miles, so idk why you post it. Please explain further.
You interpret too many things into my posts, seemingly to antagonize them that I don't really see the necessity in engaging you on these points like the aforementioned ones. I do agree that the debate re: living standards is one that has been omitted by EVERY government. But your framing of the question poses it supposing it's contrary to what I said. Maybe I'm interpreting too much but thats super unproductive and false.
I'm all up for making driving a car as difficult as possible for those who don't really need to. And that discussion "who needs it" is also to be had. We have no problems restricting people on low income to food stamps, why not restrict carbon for everyone?
10000% carbon tax on private jets here I come. Use the funds to help emerging economies stabilize their social system and develop robust energy networks. yay.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 01 2022 17:49 Artisreal wrote:
I wonder where I wrote about energy independence? really not sure where you got that idea from.
That's the necessary implication of "green energy investment thanks to Putin." If reducing reliability on Russian gas (or, in more commonly used parlance, energy independence) is not the goal, then this has nothing to do with Putin. If it is about that, then all of what I said applies.
On March 01 2022 17:49 Artisreal wrote:
Your aside against Tesla is well warranted. But it misses my statements by miles, so idk why you post it. Please explain further.
You interpret too many things into my posts, seemingly to antagonize them that I don't really see the necessity in engaging you on these points like the aforementioned ones. I do agree that the debate re: living standards is one that has been omitted by EVERY government. But your framing of the question poses it supposing it's contrary to what I said. Maybe I'm interpreting too much but thats super unproductive and false.
None of what I said is meant to be an attack on your position. I'll admit the language I used is pretty pointed, but that's more so aimed at the realities of what you actually have to do about climate, and how none of what we're actually doing or claiming we will do is going to get us to a better future.
Drone's response above to my point is really good at saying what I was getting at in a real succinct way. I would only add the assertion that consumerism is fundamentally incompatible with the measures we need to make a dent in the climate change problem, and that if we're not willing to sacrifice consumerism (or capitalism in general) then we've already lost the fight. I very much believe that failing to acknowledge this has led us to where we are now: a 2022 where decades of green initiatives quickly give way to an energy crisis that undermines all of that progress, and then some.
|
On March 01 2022 18:27 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2022 17:49 Artisreal wrote:
I wonder where I wrote about energy independence? really not sure where you got that idea from. That's the necessary implication of "green energy investment thanks to Putin." If reducing reliability on Russian gas (or, in more commonly used parlance, energy independence) is not the goal, then this has nothing to do with Putin. If it is about that, then all of what I said applies. Show nested quote +On March 01 2022 17:49 Artisreal wrote:
Your aside against Tesla is well warranted. But it misses my statements by miles, so idk why you post it. Please explain further.
You interpret too many things into my posts, seemingly to antagonize them that I don't really see the necessity in engaging you on these points like the aforementioned ones. I do agree that the debate re: living standards is one that has been omitted by EVERY government. But your framing of the question poses it supposing it's contrary to what I said. Maybe I'm interpreting too much but thats super unproductive and false. None of what I said is meant to be an attack on your position. I'll admit the language I used is pretty pointed, but that's more so aimed at the realities of what you actually have to do about climate, and how none of what we're actually doing or claiming we will do is going to get us to a better future. Drone's response above to my point is really good at saying what I was getting at in a real succinct way. I would only add the assertion that consumerism is fundamentally incompatible with the measures we need to make a dent in the climate change problem, and that if we're not willing to sacrifice consumerism (or capitalism in general) then we've already lost the fight. I very much believe that failing to acknowledge this has led us to where we are now: a 2022 where decades of green initiatives quickly give way to an energy crisis that undermines all of that progress, and then some.
All I can say is yes, lol. And that we, that is Germany, is way too sluggish, inert, to move unless we are like super forced to.
And Putin did force a separate reality on us. That reliance on natural gas isn't the answer - for reasons entirely unrelated to combatting climate change, where our misunderstanding comes from, I think. Though I'm absolutely gonna hop on the bandwagon if trying to get to energy security helps us to get closer to 2 degrees - which is what I wanted to express earlier. Not that we can square the circle and do both quickly until next winter.
I think that was not communicated in a concise manner by my earlier posts.
|
On March 01 2022 16:37 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2022 13:00 emperorofwild wrote:On March 01 2022 11:52 whaski wrote:On March 01 2022 11:27 emperorofwild wrote:On March 01 2022 08:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Finland will begin debating on joining NATO. Russian aggression in Ukraine has pushed the Finnish public closer than ever to NATO.
Finnish political parties will gather on Tuesday to discuss Russia’s attack on Ukraine and Finland’s role in Europe’s new power balance. Finland’s potential NATO membership will also be on the table, Prime Minister Sanna Marin told reporters Monday.
The mood in Helsinki is tense: Finland has Europe’s longest border with Russia at over 1,300 kilometers, but is not a part of the military alliance. The country is a close ally of NATO, but there has been little appetite to join the club — until now.
“It is very understandable that many Finns have changed or are changing their minds after Russia started waging war on Ukraine,” Marin said.
Finns are evaluating “what is the line that Russia has crossed, and what is the line that Russia will not cross … And if Russia does cross some line, do we face it alone or together with others,” Marin said. She did not comment on her personal position on NATO.
A survey by the Finnish broadcasting company Yle found that 53 percent of Finns support their country joining NATO. This figure goes up to 66 percent if neighboring Sweden were also to join NATO. This marks a drastic shift in public attitudes — in the previous poll in 2017, only 19 percent of Finns supported NATO membership.
A citizens’ initiative to hold a referendum on whether Finland should join NATO gathered the required 50,000 signatures in less than a week, which forces parliament to debate it.
In a move premier Marin called “historic,” Finland announced it is offering Ukraine weapons. “Finland staunchly supports Ukrainian independence and sovereignty. Finland will offer weapons to Ukraine and the aid will be delivered quickly. This decision will not endanger national defense,” Marin said. Source I think this war tells them that Russia is not that strong. Big win for anglo saxon‘s old tricks！ There are many reasons, but the biggest one is fear. We have seen how Russia has switched its goals to just shoot everything as possible. And given our history with "dear neighbour" many of us are absolutely terrified. Like our news analyzed, we have been absolutely naive about Russia and Putin. The whole diplomatic aproach with Russia has been a complete failure and we should have listened Baltic countries, Poland etc. when they warned us about Russia. My history knowledge，Finland has been peace with Russia after 1920s？ So what changed？ Answer1:Russia is much weaker than it was. they need Europes industry products just as Europe need their petroleum. It could be good for whole Europe. Answer2: NATO, which mainly controled by US expanded to the border of Rusia, that is Russian's "biggest fear". Its like someone h aving his dagger on your throat ,saying Im not gonna to stab you ,and i m not touching you ,so you can not fight back,i m just defending my self. And this world has no police ,or this dagger guy always say himself is the police. While answer 2 is definitely what Russia wants you to believe, it just doesn't make any sense. NATO isn't holding a knife to Russia's throat. NATO's main and leading principle is that it's a military alliance to defend the countries together. Ukraine didn't want to join NATO because they want to invade Russia, but rather because Russia was getting increasingly pushy and menacing. Turns out actually joining NATO is pretty much the only thing that would have stopped Russia from invading here (well, I guess full capitulation to their demands and becoming another puppet state like Belarus would have worked too). So no, the right analog isn't that NATO has a knife to Russia's throat. It's that Russia is a particularly ill tempered man who keeps beating up his neighbours when they don't do as he tells them. It seems quite logical for his neighbours to want to join into an alliance that says "right, next time you punch me, we'll gang up on you". Oh, and did I mention he also has explosives to blow up everybody in the neighborhood if he felt his own life was in danger? So even if they do gang up and fight back, they can never get too vengeful or everybody dies. Finland was so far the hippy neighbour, smoking pot and asking why we can't all just be friends. He got punched a bit but justified it as just the cost of living. Now, however, he's seeing the other neighbor that didn't join the alliance get attacked with a chainsaw and is rapidly recalculating his options.
I think the location of missile bases really matters，thats why Cuba crisis came out, right? If Russia should be peaceful with NATO expansion，why US not allow Cuba have Russian missiles？
And NATO is aiming someone obviously. If its not, Russia could join in, at least Russia have an Atlantic ocean coast， while Ukraine does not...Further more even China ,india can join in, what a good big earth family,huh?
I think the west propagenda disguised the true international rules.
The truth is not about right or wrong, its about the balance of power. Former USSR/NATO banlance point was Berlin, now its Poland, US want to try Ukraine，Russia says no，who will win，I dont know，but the cost is just Ukraines blood，so I say its big win for Anglo Saxon old trick
|
Northern Ireland25237 Posts
On March 01 2022 17:36 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2022 17:29 LegalLord wrote:On March 01 2022 16:30 Artisreal wrote:On March 01 2022 08:17 LegalLord wrote:
It's cute, and accelerating transition to green is a good thing, but replacing natural gas with green energy on an accelerated schedule is a pipe dream (heh). I say this a lot, but the real solution to energy independence is not green energy, but coal and fracking. Saying "fuck the environment" is definitely a strategy, and it can get you energy independence, but if everybody does it we all lose.
The two problems with renewable energy are always going to be geography and consistency. Geographically - you don't want to put solar panels where there's a lot of cloud cover on a regular basis or windmills in places that aren't windy. And you'd better hope those power sources are close to places that use a lot of power, or else power transmission becomes expensive. On consistency - sunny days (or months) and hurricane-level winds produce more power than wintry and windless ones. Batteries are garbage at scale, so something like hydrogen might be good, but that's absurdly inefficient to make greenly (via electrolysis). To be fair it sounds like these are the exact problems they're trying to solve, but if the technology (in the sense of efficient engineering design, not basic science) isn't there in 2022 then the large-scale infrastructure won't be in 2035.
Also remember that there's four energy sources at play here that have various priorities to get rid of - coal, Russian gas, LNG, and nuclear. Russian gas is at least in the top two (competing w/ nuclear) among those options. Is the strategy going to be "more emphasis on renewable energy so we can shed Russian gas, but keep dirtier fuels?" If so, the real strategy is you're keeping more coal up and running. LNG as an alternative to Russian gas is an option, and Europe is definitely going to push more towards that (as they already have) but the price difference is substantial, and you need many years to make that happen at a large scale even if you're willing to dump hundreds of billions in extra expenditure.
I can say this pretty confidently because this is exactly what was said in 2014, and it turns out that when you make stupid transition plans you win stupid prizes as happened in the 2021-present time period. Which means not just gas but desperately backtracking on coal as well. In the long run you can and do want to avoid dependence on a single supplier, but the only way to be both green and Russia-free in the short term (5 years absolute minimum, but realistically more like 15-20) is to decide that you don't really want to have an economy.
It's currently in the interest of all involved that "the gas must flow." Maybe not the US since they want to sell overpriced LNG, but really no one else. And yes, the truth here is quite an ugly one but that's commodities for you. You will find that even in wartime, Ukraine and Russia cooperated to make sure that more gas flows through than it did in the prewar days.
SPM.D.5.3 The cumulative scientific evidence is unequivocal: Climate change is a threat to human well-being
and planetary health. Any further delay in concerted anticipatory global action on adaptation and mitigation
will miss a brief and rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all.
(very high confidence)
It's funny, but fuck the environment because it's complicated or too expensive is not an option. Suddenly your whole post is obsolete, albeit pointing out various challenges of building a sustainable energy supply that I wholeheartedly agree with. Though not with your delineation of the next steps. I'm with you on the importance of climate change and addressing it. All I'm saying is that the premise - energy independence by way of renewables - is a feel-good fantasy because you are trying to satisfy two very different, and very complex, problem without really thinking it through. And all that leads to is a sharp step backwards that will look like a lost decade of attempted progress because the strategy backfires in a severe way. Open disregard for the environment is absolutely a strategy that will allow for better ability to address energy independence. The downside is everyone loses in the long run, but it does provide better energy security for now. But what I see is something that reminds me of "buy a Tesla save the environment" mentality - wishful thinking that encourages a climate-dangerous core behavior (consumerism), to do something notionally green (buy EV), but that when you look at it closely it's actually significantly worse for both practical purposes and for having any chance of being useful to the intended goal of saving the environment. More mundane, practical alternatives with none of the cover appeal (e.g. buses) would serve the goal better. And that's what happens when you say "more green investment will let us stop using gas faster." The cover appeal is beautiful, but the reality is uglier. You have to start making terrible choices, like: 1. Am I willing to prioritize getting rid of gas dependency over ending the dirtiest fuel, coal? 2. Am I willing to accept a significantly reduced economy (think pandemic-era shutdown but permanent) to reduce general demand on power? 3. Am I willing to accept rolling blackouts as a standard part of life to accommodate the reduced reliability of a pure-renewable power supply? The answers to these questions are not pretty. And to be frank, I've seen far less acknowledgment of that from the architects of these green policies than propaganda about how we should greenify everything as if it's just a simple matter like that. This post I like, and it does ask relevant questions. I think a lot of people have been trying to make the 'green shift' palatable, by making it seem like 'you can still live your consumer lifestyle, you just have to consume environmentally friendly stuff instead!!', while the reality is that no, us western folk cannot keep living life as we know it without drastically impacting the environment, and cutting fossil fuels to the degree they need to be cut at the rate they need to be cut is going to impact the availability of stuff we've grown accustomed to find essential. I've been guilty of it myself, tbh, but more so in the past. The notion that the slow, gradual change that can be achieved within a consumerist economy is sufficient to avoid the most dire consequences might have been true if this slow, gradual change actually started happening a couple decades ago, but now, much has to happen in the next 10 years, and we're not on track to get there.
I’d be happy enough with a cutting back. Granted that’s informed by long-term relative poverty also, but I’m fine having less stuff, fewer trips and maybe throwing on an extra blanket of an evening.
Granted I’m also a tad biased in that I don’t think consumerism has lead to a particularly mentally healthy populace, it’s supplanted other things that would collectively balance us out.
Even if we rolled back several degrees in the West we still enjoy a standard of living above what most of the world enjoys today, and considering the stakes it’s a no-brainier.
Unfortunately we’re not really given that option, and if we were I can’t imagine it being given popular consent.
|
|
|
On March 01 2022 23:42 emperorofwild wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2022 16:37 Acrofales wrote:On March 01 2022 13:00 emperorofwild wrote:On March 01 2022 11:52 whaski wrote:On March 01 2022 11:27 emperorofwild wrote:On March 01 2022 08:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Finland will begin debating on joining NATO. Russian aggression in Ukraine has pushed the Finnish public closer than ever to NATO.
Finnish political parties will gather on Tuesday to discuss Russia’s attack on Ukraine and Finland’s role in Europe’s new power balance. Finland’s potential NATO membership will also be on the table, Prime Minister Sanna Marin told reporters Monday.
The mood in Helsinki is tense: Finland has Europe’s longest border with Russia at over 1,300 kilometers, but is not a part of the military alliance. The country is a close ally of NATO, but there has been little appetite to join the club — until now.
“It is very understandable that many Finns have changed or are changing their minds after Russia started waging war on Ukraine,” Marin said.
Finns are evaluating “what is the line that Russia has crossed, and what is the line that Russia will not cross … And if Russia does cross some line, do we face it alone or together with others,” Marin said. She did not comment on her personal position on NATO.
A survey by the Finnish broadcasting company Yle found that 53 percent of Finns support their country joining NATO. This figure goes up to 66 percent if neighboring Sweden were also to join NATO. This marks a drastic shift in public attitudes — in the previous poll in 2017, only 19 percent of Finns supported NATO membership.
A citizens’ initiative to hold a referendum on whether Finland should join NATO gathered the required 50,000 signatures in less than a week, which forces parliament to debate it.
In a move premier Marin called “historic,” Finland announced it is offering Ukraine weapons. “Finland staunchly supports Ukrainian independence and sovereignty. Finland will offer weapons to Ukraine and the aid will be delivered quickly. This decision will not endanger national defense,” Marin said. Source I think this war tells them that Russia is not that strong. Big win for anglo saxon‘s old tricks！ There are many reasons, but the biggest one is fear. We have seen how Russia has switched its goals to just shoot everything as possible. And given our history with "dear neighbour" many of us are absolutely terrified. Like our news analyzed, we have been absolutely naive about Russia and Putin. The whole diplomatic aproach with Russia has been a complete failure and we should have listened Baltic countries, Poland etc. when they warned us about Russia. My history knowledge，Finland has been peace with Russia after 1920s？ So what changed？ Answer1:Russia is much weaker than it was. they need Europes industry products just as Europe need their petroleum. It could be good for whole Europe. Answer2: NATO, which mainly controled by US expanded to the border of Rusia, that is Russian's "biggest fear". Its like someone h aving his dagger on your throat ,saying Im not gonna to stab you ,and i m not touching you ,so you can not fight back,i m just defending my self. And this world has no police ,or this dagger guy always say himself is the police. While answer 2 is definitely what Russia wants you to believe, it just doesn't make any sense. NATO isn't holding a knife to Russia's throat. NATO's main and leading principle is that it's a military alliance to defend the countries together. Ukraine didn't want to join NATO because they want to invade Russia, but rather because Russia was getting increasingly pushy and menacing. Turns out actually joining NATO is pretty much the only thing that would have stopped Russia from invading here (well, I guess full capitulation to their demands and becoming another puppet state like Belarus would have worked too). So no, the right analog isn't that NATO has a knife to Russia's throat. It's that Russia is a particularly ill tempered man who keeps beating up his neighbours when they don't do as he tells them. It seems quite logical for his neighbours to want to join into an alliance that says "right, next time you punch me, we'll gang up on you". Oh, and did I mention he also has explosives to blow up everybody in the neighborhood if he felt his own life was in danger? So even if they do gang up and fight back, they can never get too vengeful or everybody dies. Finland was so far the hippy neighbour, smoking pot and asking why we can't all just be friends. He got punched a bit but justified it as just the cost of living. Now, however, he's seeing the other neighbor that didn't join the alliance get attacked with a chainsaw and is rapidly recalculating his options. I think the location of missile bases really matters，thats why Cuba crisis came out, right? If Russia should be peaceful with NATO expansion，why US not allow Cuba have Russian missiles？ And NATO is aiming someone obviously. If its not, Russia could join in, at least Russia have an Atlantic ocean coast， while Ukraine does not...Further more even China ,india can join in, what a good big earth family,huh? I think the west propagenda disguised the true international rules. The truth is not about right or wrong, its about the balance of power. Former USSR/NATO banlance point was Berlin, now its Poland, US want to try Ukraine，Russia says no，who will win，I dont know，but the cost is just Ukraines blood，so I say its big win for Anglo Saxon old trick
The thing is, countries want to be in NATO. Because, as Russia is proving right now, not being in NATO and being next to Russia is really scary.
Sovereign nations should get to decide on their own alliances. Russia is of the opinion that it gets to dictate stuff for the nations next to it. Russia is enforcing this belief with a war of aggression.
Russia likes to point this as NATO expanding, as if the countries NATO expands to have no choice in the matter whatsoever. But that is utterly dishonest. Countries have just figured out that being in NATO is really, really good, because it stops Russia from fucking with you. And the Russian aggression right now is proving to everyone why they should be in NATO.
This is not about "western propaganda" or whatever, it is about nations seeking protection from a bully, who absolutely will fuck them up.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 01 2022 19:06 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2022 18:27 LegalLord wrote:On March 01 2022 17:49 Artisreal wrote:
I wonder where I wrote about energy independence? really not sure where you got that idea from. That's the necessary implication of "green energy investment thanks to Putin." If reducing reliability on Russian gas (or, in more commonly used parlance, energy independence) is not the goal, then this has nothing to do with Putin. If it is about that, then all of what I said applies. On March 01 2022 17:49 Artisreal wrote:
Your aside against Tesla is well warranted. But it misses my statements by miles, so idk why you post it. Please explain further.
You interpret too many things into my posts, seemingly to antagonize them that I don't really see the necessity in engaging you on these points like the aforementioned ones. I do agree that the debate re: living standards is one that has been omitted by EVERY government. But your framing of the question poses it supposing it's contrary to what I said. Maybe I'm interpreting too much but thats super unproductive and false. None of what I said is meant to be an attack on your position. I'll admit the language I used is pretty pointed, but that's more so aimed at the realities of what you actually have to do about climate, and how none of what we're actually doing or claiming we will do is going to get us to a better future. Drone's response above to my point is really good at saying what I was getting at in a real succinct way. I would only add the assertion that consumerism is fundamentally incompatible with the measures we need to make a dent in the climate change problem, and that if we're not willing to sacrifice consumerism (or capitalism in general) then we've already lost the fight. I very much believe that failing to acknowledge this has led us to where we are now: a 2022 where decades of green initiatives quickly give way to an energy crisis that undermines all of that progress, and then some. All I can say is yes, lol. And that we, that is Germany, is way too sluggish, inert, to move unless we are like super forced to. And Putin did force a separate reality on us. That reliance on natural gas isn't the answer - for reasons entirely unrelated to combatting climate change, where our misunderstanding comes from, I think. Though I'm absolutely gonna hop on the bandwagon if trying to get to energy security helps us to get closer to 2 degrees - which is what I wanted to express earlier. Not that we can square the circle and do both quickly until next winter. I think that was not communicated in a concise manner by my earlier posts.
I think this is one of those realities where you have a "pick two": having an economy, having energy security, reducing climate impact.
Though really it's more of a "pick up to two, and only if you make some serious concessions to get there." A modern economy is pretty much impossible without either coal or gas and that's not changing within a decade.
|
On March 01 2022 23:42 emperorofwild wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2022 16:37 Acrofales wrote:On March 01 2022 13:00 emperorofwild wrote:On March 01 2022 11:52 whaski wrote:On March 01 2022 11:27 emperorofwild wrote:On March 01 2022 08:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Finland will begin debating on joining NATO. Russian aggression in Ukraine has pushed the Finnish public closer than ever to NATO.
Finnish political parties will gather on Tuesday to discuss Russia’s attack on Ukraine and Finland’s role in Europe’s new power balance. Finland’s potential NATO membership will also be on the table, Prime Minister Sanna Marin told reporters Monday.
The mood in Helsinki is tense: Finland has Europe’s longest border with Russia at over 1,300 kilometers, but is not a part of the military alliance. The country is a close ally of NATO, but there has been little appetite to join the club — until now.
“It is very understandable that many Finns have changed or are changing their minds after Russia started waging war on Ukraine,” Marin said.
Finns are evaluating “what is the line that Russia has crossed, and what is the line that Russia will not cross … And if Russia does cross some line, do we face it alone or together with others,” Marin said. She did not comment on her personal position on NATO.
A survey by the Finnish broadcasting company Yle found that 53 percent of Finns support their country joining NATO. This figure goes up to 66 percent if neighboring Sweden were also to join NATO. This marks a drastic shift in public attitudes — in the previous poll in 2017, only 19 percent of Finns supported NATO membership.
A citizens’ initiative to hold a referendum on whether Finland should join NATO gathered the required 50,000 signatures in less than a week, which forces parliament to debate it.
In a move premier Marin called “historic,” Finland announced it is offering Ukraine weapons. “Finland staunchly supports Ukrainian independence and sovereignty. Finland will offer weapons to Ukraine and the aid will be delivered quickly. This decision will not endanger national defense,” Marin said. Source I think this war tells them that Russia is not that strong. Big win for anglo saxon‘s old tricks！ There are many reasons, but the biggest one is fear. We have seen how Russia has switched its goals to just shoot everything as possible. And given our history with "dear neighbour" many of us are absolutely terrified. Like our news analyzed, we have been absolutely naive about Russia and Putin. The whole diplomatic aproach with Russia has been a complete failure and we should have listened Baltic countries, Poland etc. when they warned us about Russia. My history knowledge，Finland has been peace with Russia after 1920s？ So what changed？ Answer1:Russia is much weaker than it was. they need Europes industry products just as Europe need their petroleum. It could be good for whole Europe. Answer2: NATO, which mainly controled by US expanded to the border of Rusia, that is Russian's "biggest fear". Its like someone h aving his dagger on your throat ,saying Im not gonna to stab you ,and i m not touching you ,so you can not fight back,i m just defending my self. And this world has no police ,or this dagger guy always say himself is the police. While answer 2 is definitely what Russia wants you to believe, it just doesn't make any sense. NATO isn't holding a knife to Russia's throat. NATO's main and leading principle is that it's a military alliance to defend the countries together. Ukraine didn't want to join NATO because they want to invade Russia, but rather because Russia was getting increasingly pushy and menacing. Turns out actually joining NATO is pretty much the only thing that would have stopped Russia from invading here (well, I guess full capitulation to their demands and becoming another puppet state like Belarus would have worked too). So no, the right analog isn't that NATO has a knife to Russia's throat. It's that Russia is a particularly ill tempered man who keeps beating up his neighbours when they don't do as he tells them. It seems quite logical for his neighbours to want to join into an alliance that says "right, next time you punch me, we'll gang up on you". Oh, and did I mention he also has explosives to blow up everybody in the neighborhood if he felt his own life was in danger? So even if they do gang up and fight back, they can never get too vengeful or everybody dies. Finland was so far the hippy neighbour, smoking pot and asking why we can't all just be friends. He got punched a bit but justified it as just the cost of living. Now, however, he's seeing the other neighbor that didn't join the alliance get attacked with a chainsaw and is rapidly recalculating his options. I think the location of missile bases really matters，thats why Cuba crisis came out, right? If Russia should be peaceful with NATO expansion，why US not allow Cuba have Russian missiles？ And NATO is aiming someone obviously. If its not, Russia could join in, at least Russia have an Atlantic ocean coast， while Ukraine does not...Further more even China ,india can join in, what a good big earth family,huh? I think the west propagenda disguised the true international rules. The truth is not about right or wrong, its about the balance of power. Former USSR/NATO banlance point was Berlin, now its Poland, US want to try Ukraine，Russia says no，who will win，I dont know，but the cost is just Ukraines blood，so I say its big win for Anglo Saxon old trick
Thank you for clarifying why countries neighbouring Russia have every reason to be afraid of it. Im sure Molotov and Ribbentrop shared this "balance of power" in their "diplomacy".
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On the Finland-NATO matter, I want to pose the following question: if Russia were to attack a non-NATO Finland, would NATO countries intervene militarily?
If yes (and I think the answer is yes), then membership becomes less of a matter of security and more of a matter of hosting foreign military hardware and having a military apparatus that is subservient to that of the larger NATO organization. And that is another debate entirely.
If no, are you certain that a mutual defense pact would change that? For at least one dangerous example, I know that the USSR and China had a falling out because despite security guarantees, the Soviets didn't actually want to get into a war with the US if Taiwan became a flashpoint for a hot war. If there is any reason to doubt that a mutual defense pact would be upheld, the entire security apparatus falls apart before the first shot is fired.
|
|
|
On March 02 2022 00:58 LegalLord wrote:
On the Finland-NATO matter, I want to pose the following question: if Russia were to attack a non-NATO Finland, would NATO countries intervene militarily?
If yes (and I think the answer is yes), then membership becomes less of a matter of security and more of a matter of hosting foreign military hardware and having a military apparatus that is subservient to that of the larger NATO organization. And that is another debate entirely.
If no, are you certain that a mutual defense pact would change that? For at least one dangerous example, I know that the USSR and China had a falling out because despite security guarantees, the Soviets didn't actually want to get into a war with the US if Taiwan became a flashpoint for a hot war. If there is any reason to doubt that a mutual defense pact would be upheld, the entire security apparatus falls apart before the first shot is fired. yes, maybe probably?
Finland is not part of NATO but it is part of the EU's mutual defence agreement. So if Russia were the attack Finland then the EU would most likely get involved, and if the EU gets pulled in NATO probably isn't going to be very far behind.
Finland probably doesn't need NATO. But its not hard to understand why it comes up for conversation when Russia is attacking nations simply because it can.
|
No way, nobody would help Finland. 1939 and now Ukraine have proved it. Not to mention that current regime thinks quite lowly of our independence like Putin and Zhirinovski have often demonstrated. If Putin defines that his goal is to return the Russian empire on the map, how should Finland be any different than Ukraine.
|
United States42654 Posts
On March 01 2022 23:42 emperorofwild wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2022 16:37 Acrofales wrote:On March 01 2022 13:00 emperorofwild wrote:On March 01 2022 11:52 whaski wrote:On March 01 2022 11:27 emperorofwild wrote:On March 01 2022 08:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Finland will begin debating on joining NATO. Russian aggression in Ukraine has pushed the Finnish public closer than ever to NATO.
Finnish political parties will gather on Tuesday to discuss Russia’s attack on Ukraine and Finland’s role in Europe’s new power balance. Finland’s potential NATO membership will also be on the table, Prime Minister Sanna Marin told reporters Monday.
The mood in Helsinki is tense: Finland has Europe’s longest border with Russia at over 1,300 kilometers, but is not a part of the military alliance. The country is a close ally of NATO, but there has been little appetite to join the club — until now.
“It is very understandable that many Finns have changed or are changing their minds after Russia started waging war on Ukraine,” Marin said.
Finns are evaluating “what is the line that Russia has crossed, and what is the line that Russia will not cross … And if Russia does cross some line, do we face it alone or together with others,” Marin said. She did not comment on her personal position on NATO.
A survey by the Finnish broadcasting company Yle found that 53 percent of Finns support their country joining NATO. This figure goes up to 66 percent if neighboring Sweden were also to join NATO. This marks a drastic shift in public attitudes — in the previous poll in 2017, only 19 percent of Finns supported NATO membership.
A citizens’ initiative to hold a referendum on whether Finland should join NATO gathered the required 50,000 signatures in less than a week, which forces parliament to debate it.
In a move premier Marin called “historic,” Finland announced it is offering Ukraine weapons. “Finland staunchly supports Ukrainian independence and sovereignty. Finland will offer weapons to Ukraine and the aid will be delivered quickly. This decision will not endanger national defense,” Marin said. Source I think this war tells them that Russia is not that strong. Big win for anglo saxon‘s old tricks！ There are many reasons, but the biggest one is fear. We have seen how Russia has switched its goals to just shoot everything as possible. And given our history with "dear neighbour" many of us are absolutely terrified. Like our news analyzed, we have been absolutely naive about Russia and Putin. The whole diplomatic aproach with Russia has been a complete failure and we should have listened Baltic countries, Poland etc. when they warned us about Russia. My history knowledge，Finland has been peace with Russia after 1920s？ So what changed？ Answer1:Russia is much weaker than it was. they need Europes industry products just as Europe need their petroleum. It could be good for whole Europe. Answer2: NATO, which mainly controled by US expanded to the border of Rusia, that is Russian's "biggest fear". Its like someone h aving his dagger on your throat ,saying Im not gonna to stab you ,and i m not touching you ,so you can not fight back,i m just defending my self. And this world has no police ,or this dagger guy always say himself is the police. While answer 2 is definitely what Russia wants you to believe, it just doesn't make any sense. NATO isn't holding a knife to Russia's throat. NATO's main and leading principle is that it's a military alliance to defend the countries together. Ukraine didn't want to join NATO because they want to invade Russia, but rather because Russia was getting increasingly pushy and menacing. Turns out actually joining NATO is pretty much the only thing that would have stopped Russia from invading here (well, I guess full capitulation to their demands and becoming another puppet state like Belarus would have worked too). So no, the right analog isn't that NATO has a knife to Russia's throat. It's that Russia is a particularly ill tempered man who keeps beating up his neighbours when they don't do as he tells them. It seems quite logical for his neighbours to want to join into an alliance that says "right, next time you punch me, we'll gang up on you". Oh, and did I mention he also has explosives to blow up everybody in the neighborhood if he felt his own life was in danger? So even if they do gang up and fight back, they can never get too vengeful or everybody dies. Finland was so far the hippy neighbour, smoking pot and asking why we can't all just be friends. He got punched a bit but justified it as just the cost of living. Now, however, he's seeing the other neighbor that didn't join the alliance get attacked with a chainsaw and is rapidly recalculating his options. I think the location of missile bases really matters，thats why Cuba crisis came out, right? If Russia should be peaceful with NATO expansion，why US not allow Cuba have Russian missiles？ And NATO is aiming someone obviously. If its not, Russia could join in, at least Russia have an Atlantic ocean coast， while Ukraine does not...Further more even China ,india can join in, what a good big earth family,huh? I think the west propagenda disguised the true international rules. The truth is not about right or wrong, its about the balance of power. Former USSR/NATO banlance point was Berlin, now its Poland, US want to try Ukraine，Russia says no，who will win，I dont know，but the cost is just Ukraines blood，so I say its big win for Anglo Saxon old trick
Ukraine wants in because Russia keep attacking them. NATO don’t really want Ukraine in, if they did they’d have let them in at the same time as Poland etc.
France has an army and nuclear weapons but you don’t hear Germany talking about how threatened it feels because the two countries have good relations. The problem isn’t that Ukraine wants weapons, it’s that Russia is creating a world in which Ukraine wants weapons. If Russia could get along with its neighbours then they wouldn’t feel so threatened.
|
United States42654 Posts
On March 02 2022 01:11 whaski wrote:
No way, nobody would help Finland. 1939 and now Ukraine have proved it. Not to mention that current regime thinks quite lowly of our independence like Putin and Zhirinovski have often demonstrated. If Putin defines that his goal is to return the Russian empire on the map, how should Finland be any different than Ukraine.
A lot of Brits went to fight in Finland. WW2 just complicated things.
|
On March 02 2022 01:11 whaski wrote:
No way, nobody would help Finland. 1939 and now Ukraine have proved it. Not to mention that current regime thinks quite lowly of our independence like Putin and Zhirinovski have often demonstrated. If Putin defines that his goal is to return the Russian empire on the map, how should Finland be any different than Ukraine. Because the EU didn't have a mutual defence agreement with Ukraine, just the UK did.
Its say that is a sizeable difference.
|
Well, there should be no doubt that the NATO membership is worth way more than the EU defense treaty.
The clauses of the Lisbon treaty are in the end just a piece of paper, saying that EU nations would come to each others aid. But would they really come to liberate Finland?
Meanwhile NATO has good reasons for having a funny rainbow of flags in every eastern border outpost. This isn't because it is some multicultural woke hippie alliance. And from a pure organizational point of view it would be much easier to e.g. say France defends the Baltics, Germany is in Poland etc. But they chose this setup to make sure, that if one country gets blasted, everyone loses soldiers and has a much higher "motivation" to really actually help.
When Poland and the Baltics were added to the NATO there were polls in the western European countries, if the population would actually support sending their armies for those new eastern states in case of an attack. And the results were very clear. The farther west, the less motivated countries were to actually answer the call.
At least some Germans wanted to defend Poland, while the French basically completely rejected the idea. And the Baltics? Nobody wanted to risk their own countrymen lives for them.
But hey, maybe they care when Hans and Francois also die, and not just "some Poles and Latvians"
Even more recent war games of the NATO all again ended with the conclusion that the Baltics are completely indefensible. And as a result they called for more troops. No, those troops didn't change anything in those war games, they would still be overrun. But they would make sure, everyone was properly dragged in and there was no way out of it.
PS: Special highlight is certainly Luxemburg. Those warmongers just tripled their troops on the eastern NATO borders. From 2 to 6! I mean, for them each soldier is like a carrier to the US. "We have decided to not only station Michel and Hugo at the border, but from now on also Paul, Antoine, Pascal and Jean will also be there. That means from now on we also have a full Counterstrike team there!"
|
What is the EU attitude towards inviting turkey into the union? It seems with the war and the change in the situation both parties would benefit a lot from it. Turkey needs to get in fast with its currency meltdown and can offer a gateway into the middle east with some very well-performing drones that are operating in Ukraine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
