Exit, pursued by a bear
viscosityredux.substack.com
viscosityredux.substack.com
For fucks sake, in The Netherlands, we are burning WOOD for """green energy""", while everyone NIMBYs the fuck out of any windmill or power grid expansion project.
Sometimes we, as a species, act in a monumentally stupid manner.
Realistically, in this new world (since Russia's invasion of Ukraine and China's coordination and complicity in it), there's zero reason for China or Russia or any of their allies to coordinate with the rest of the world to reduce greenhouse emissions, especially when their economies are so heavily dependent on greenhouse gas for their energy sources and GDP. Deglobalization is going ahead full-speed, and the forces based upon globalization were the only real way to rein in other countries' behaviors in a peaceful way.
So why should the US and EU cripple themselves? The world is in a state of war, and we need to start acting like it. Nuclear energy is a great solution that solves both climate change and energy demands, but it will take a long time for any country to get there.
Huge amounts of their infrastructure are built in permafrost, now better characterized as "thawing bog". We're talking cities, roads, power lines, gas and oil pipelines (har har), airports, ports, mines... And it's all literally melting away. Slowly for now of course but steadily. Not to mention Taiga fires which seem to be getting worse and worse.
We act as a bunch of individuals, each responding to the incentives which are put before us.
You'll never get people to stop doing something if it is easy and profitable.
Is it the relative inefficiency and cabron generated throughout supply chain?
We can't grow it (absorb carbon) as fast as we can burn it (release it), so it's effectively NOT carbon neutral in our time.
The core proposal isn't to replace all energy production from burning wood alone, but to explore all renewable energy sources at our disposal. Producing high value heat and energy when the sun doesn't shine through biomass gasification or anaerobic digestion helps us to fill in the gaps and utilize fuel sources that are just otherwise rotting and releasing methane in the atmosphere.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/17/climate/eu-burning-wood-e...
Pollution on the other hand...
It is ok to take some risks. It is not acceptable to be without a plan once these risks materialise.
¹Consistently, they apparently put backup plans for worst-case scenarios "there where they must" (there where they must only - where it is part of the scripted plan, there where it is consolidated practice), not as a general consideration.
On the former, it's not a competition.
On the later, Chinese state massively subsidized the industry with the objective of wiping out foreign competition.
That said, few saw a war with Russia coming.
The Greens are the #1 culprit, for their social destruction of Nuclear over the last 50 years.
If we were to have expanded Nuclear at the pace of 1980 we'd be within striking distance of getting away from fossil fuels.
It might be too late now.
It's going to be a crappy winter and I have no faith that politicians will be able to do the big pie in the sky strategy things necessary.
A Nuclear rewnewal, alongside doubling down on renewables is in order on 'Marshall Project' scale.
The stakes are high now.
It was public doctrine in textbooks, taught at university. The warnings about moves at the chessboard (which in diplomacy often are issued in advance, contrary to chess) have been stated for decades, publicly and face to face. The products of the propaganda machine were quite reachable, and not really ambiguous.
Really, that «few saw» is farcical.
Edit: and it is quite worrisome to think that said "doctrine" is now implemented only up to a small fraction, and those expressions suggest blindness not just about the current actions, but the openly planned, stated future ones.
Which book(s), at which university? Genuinely curious.
Of course! I think you just should (or at least that it makes full sense to ask).
I remember - to the best of my memory, it was probably well over five years ago when I read the articles - it was the geopolitics course at Uni Moscow; the professor is/was an ideologist influential in the circle of the core decision makers. The list included a pretty large number of objectives, of which the current topic is just a line.
When, after the war really started¹ and of course you think of the tick-mark in the list, I looked for the original article, I found it definitely not the most immediate needle in the haystack. A few weeks later, though, as the ideologists started to present their point of view to the western public, one interview emerged which I have good reasons to believe was from the above said professor.
I will check for you later when I will have some contiguous time: the name of that interviewed professor (easier to find: I have it in my RSS harvest) should be a better lead to retrieve the articles about his course about the national geopolitical objectives.
¹With reference to those commentators which gave it for a fact well before the actual border trespassing - e.g. Niall Ferguson.
Correctly, as I remembered, he was one of the voices that gave interviews to spread the "creed" in the past weeks - I recognized the name. And he stated in the interviews: "We will get hurt immensely, but we will reach the goal" - this shall be an intellectual warning to the adopters of naïve rational-agentism ("homo oeconomicus would never").
I see that I remembered the wrong faculty: he worked at the Department of Sociology (I probably confused the book name with the department). And I see that the use as textbook has been sparse - adopted and celebrated here and there.
I must recommend that readers go through that list: it is "quite strong". The presence of the UK in the list as an entity that should be separated from Europe is what woke up some commentators after Brexit, with the question "Could they have helped it - surely they expressed they wanted it".
Reported words of that author, that may give a sketchy profile:
> I think that Internet as such, as a phenomenon is worth prohibiting because it gives nobody anything good
> If we want to liberate ourselves from the West, it is needed to liberate ourselves from textbooks on physics and chemistry
...And those lines should again be flashing hints to those who like to consider the players at the chessboard agents following a common rational framework.
War is always unthinkable. Yes, there were warning signs that, in retrospect, were obvious, but Russia invading Ukraine was so profoundly dumb it was difficult to expect for Putin to really go through with it. He did, his country is suffering in result, and he wants to make it mutual, WWI style. You can't really blame Germany for doing their best on making a war unthinkable through economic interdependence.
You may enjoy the following cartoon (20 Jan 2022) from Zemgus Zaharans from Riga - I literally just met it:
https://cartoonmovement.com/cartoon/germany-and-russia
Which by the way is about having kept the stance until the last moment.
An intention spelt out in textbooks?! Quite an understatement.
Q: "So the part had been expressing an explicit, literal intention, public, codified, written, divulgated, explained et cetera?" // A: "...Heart, Hope, Daily routine, Expectation, Being alike..."
You are defending a perspective of intentional removal of reality, and the principle of reality constraint, from conscience.
> You can't really blame... for doing their best on making a war unthinkable through
In that '«unthinkable»' you show the whole point. It was very much duly thinkable.
Surely those who overrode reality, and in favour of illusion, and clinging unprepared in a cage of "que será", are to blame, and to blame, and to blame.
I don't even agree in 'hindsight' this situation was obvious. It's a hugely risky and crazy manoeuvre by Putin that may very well be his undoing.
The Russian economy is starting to crack, vast elements of key industrial sectors are collapsing.
There are no good cars being made in Russia, and even their garbage Lada's, which nobody wants, might not get made due to sanctions.
Car sales have dropped 80%, there's a vicious black market for spare parts.
Most Russians drive foreign cars. What happens when the all need parts?
Russian airline fleets cannot get maintenance or parts. They are being grounded.
Nothing about this invasion is obvious or doctrinal.
Entirely a surprise? Maybe not - but certainly not expected by anyone, even those paying attention.
Illogical. You could do your own research. Hint, anyway: some material was found as "most interesting" by investigative journalism after Brexit.
Likewise,
> Nothing about this invasion is obvious or doctrinal
is a fully irrational statement.
--
About the substantive part of your post: you are committing the error of confusing reasoning, under subjective value assumptions, as a ground for prediction. You do not go "certainly they would not do that" projecting in others the role of "rational agents" according to criteria you defined for them. Generic actors do not act "like you would", they act like _they_ would.
No, it's not illogical for us to ask you to validate your completely made up, speculative claims that have no basis in reality.
I've already 'done my research'. I know there is nothing 'doctrinal' about Russia's invasion.
You're making claims about other's rhetorical posture (i.e. "you are committing the error of confusing reasoning") - at the same time you're unsubstantiated fantasy statements.
Your claims about 'Russian doctrine' are a bit outrageous and I suggest you might not even know what the term 'doctrine' even means.
I'd be happy to be proven wrong, so again, provide evidence for your wild claims.
Looking forward to it (I really am actually, prove me wrong ...).
(And your logic: I never said it was «illogical to ask». You never even asked.)
"In the days leading up to Russia's February invasion of Ukraine, Vladimir Putin gave a televised address that rejected the idea of Ukraine as an independent country. It never had the 'stable traditions of real statehood,' Putin said. Instead, modern Ukraine was 'entirely created by Russia or, to be more precise, by Bolshevik, Communist Russia.'
More than prelude and pretext for a bloody war, Putin's words echo the writings of a man who has proselytized this idea for almost three decades: Aleksandr Dugin. A Russian political philosopher, Dugin has been influential with Russian military and political elites — even with Putin himself."[0]
Dugin's textbook in question, translated from Russian:
"On the key question of Ukraine, Dugin underlines: 'Ukraine as a state has no geopolitical meaning. It has no particular cultural import or universal significance, no geographic uniqueness, no ethnic exclusiveness" (377). 'Ukraine as an independent state with certain territorial ambitions,' he warns, 'represents an enormous danger for all of Eurasia and, without resolving the Ukrainian problem, it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics' (348)"[1]
[0]:https://www.cbsnews.com/news/aleksandr-dugin-russia-ukraine-... [1]:https://web.archive.org/web/20160607175004/https://www2.gwu....
What is relevant are the decision makers - although to the analyst all phenomena are differently relevant, but to reconstruct decision making - and said mention of «teachings [] in textbooks or doctrine» is obscure with regard to the point.
I wrote «It was public doctrine in textbooks, taught at university». I very clearly intended to mean that those doctrines were shown in the open, and that they should have "rung warning bells" together with many other puzzle pieces. Nothing secret, not "documents in safes". And there have been occasions to remind analysts of them.
When the "Ruler formerly known as Mr" (the intention of a change of title was news of the past few hours) took Presidents one by one and clearly spelt out conditions - as they witness -, when doctrine was formulated in clear words and infographics available at your best bookstore (but you can probably attend a lecture), it becomes farcical to act as if Las Vegas had no signs.
If she is wearing a T-shirt, read it: it may contain a message. Otherwise they will complain rightfully you do not listen.
The one chief question about the "book" is how extensive analysts valuated its penetration. Being there, it was there.
It was absolutely not 'doctrine' on either side, in any sense, either military or economic, that dependency on Russian Oil would bring war.
Nor was it 'doctrine' that Russia would ultimately invade Ukraine 'full on'. Even most Russian elite were surprised.
The only 'doctrine' we have to rely on is a) how Russia will use nuclear weapons, b) how they generally operate on the battlefield (aka heavy on Army, esp. Artillery), and how they basically 'lie about everything' in foreign policy.
It was in many ways rational to contemplate that economic ties would diminish hostility, it mostly worked for the rest of Europe.
Were Putin to have eventually retired, his replacement would not have had the power necessary to do, almost alone, what he and a very small cadre of people did.
This is something you conjured - it was not in the original post.
> Nor was it 'doctrine'
And this is something you cannot state.
The documents were there: I read articles about them many years ago.
> surprised
May that possibly be because of a "they would never" bad reasoning, as mentioned in the other sibling post?
How on earth is it right to criticize a government for subsidizing green energy in the face of climate change? The reason why solar panels are so cheap today was because Chinese companies achieved economies of scale due to governmental support. This is a GOOD thing.
European countries were way ahead of the curve 10 years ago in terms of these green technologies but chose to do nothing. Their solar companies could have been world leaders as long as governmental policies supported them too. They would have been wiping others out. How can anyone blame China for investing/subsidizing in green energies? The way I view it, it's their just rewards for at least taking this aspect of green technology seriously while others did next to nothing in terms of subsidies.
But they did? (Sorry if Iʼve misunderstood you.)
“According to a 2016 study commissioned by a neoliberal think tank, €150 billion have been spent so far, and the bill is estimated to reach half a trillion euros by 2025.”[1]
That was started by the Schröder government (1998–2005) and rather half-heartedly continued by the Merkel government (2005–2021), decreasing the subsidies.
China has even benefitted from German subsidies.
“Germany long aimed to be a front runner in the solar energy industry, but waning subsidies and rising competition from China have clouded its outlook. To add insult to injury, the Chinese boom has been generously supported by German financial aid.” … “According to KfW officials, it was precisely the subsidy policy's goal to help Chinese solar producers achieve a breakthrough, in order to promote the environmentally friendly technology internationally.”[2]
[1] https://www.dw.com/en/german-issues-in-a-nutshell-energiewen... [2] https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/a-capital-error...
Europeans were never going to be the 'leaders' - and even without massive Chinese subsidies, it's unlikely that Europe would beat China in industry.
Europe has been rolling out renewables at a good clip.
The Greens of Europe and 'Greepeace' NA have been scaremongering about 'Nuclear' for decades. Fukishima was the last straw.
We should have been investing in Nuclear for the last 30 years.
And now those parties are blaming the greens because "you told us to get rid of nuclear".
Nuclear and hydropower are the only reliable options to be the backbone of the grid.
Wilful blindness is a thing in international relations. Churchill plowed a lonely furrow in the 1930s. We were sure the bad old days were over in 1992. Etc. Policymakers and the public /wanted/ to believe that the era of aggression was over (or perhaps, more cynically, that the only permissible aggressor would remain the US).
Only in the sense that they weren't harsh enough, yes. They are stupid in how many areas they haven't tackled yet.
Declaring war to Hitler over invading Poland was colossally stupid.
No, relying on oil and natural gas was stupid.
We had so many warnings -- Moldova, Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine in 2014 and Ukraine now -- the only explanation possible is that Merkel and her cronies are russian agents.
That would imply going against the grain.
Merkel always did what was popular. And not freezing and supporting your industry is popular.
Modern industry requires gas/oil. Green industry requires rare earth minerals. Guess which two countries have huge amounts of those available?
Germany was always in a tight spot.
Depends on Russia for energy, depends on US for security, and exports to China (+future rare earth minerals)
The sanctions must be taken back, Ukraine must be divided and de-militarized, relationship with Russia and China MUST be improved. All this as long as we can.
Unfortuntatly, we only have trash politians in Germany.
Once there are demonstrations against this shit system, I will join. For the first time in my life. I am sick and tired of this system that knows it better and just hurts us. No thanks.
Ukraine first, then Poland then the baltics, then all the way to Berlin, and when we're there, all the way to the Atlantic ocean.
Russian shills, do you think we're that stupid?
Russia must be split.
During the Soviet times, the main enemy of the Soviet State was their own people which could revolt.
The russian people today are sadly 90% behind Putin with his ruscism because of the effective propaganda -- today, the only real enemy of Russia is Reality and Truth itself and that's what Russia is really fighting. The only way to postpone reality & truth from emerging is perpetual war.
Russia must be stopped in Ukraine in order for the reality of things to take hold in Russia and for Russia to be rebuilt on sane values.
edit: yes, it's more in jest than anything else
Are you Ukranian?
Any widget made in Europe - already losing in cost competition with East Asia - will now become even more expensive to make. It takes circa 10 years for nuclear reactor from plan-to-grid, and that is on the basis *with& the available workforce to do it, which of course Europe doesn't have any more.
Mass purchase of the Hualong One reactor might be a solution if the Chinese can make them fast enough. Either that, or dig up some more coal and burn that for the next decade or two, so goodbye climate change goals. It's an absolute mess, pain has started to percolate now, but will reverberate for years
If so, then the trans-Atlantic unity will come under serious strain as well. This is happening just as Europe began to climb into a bigger suit, that of an independent economic and military bloc to be reckoned with (not that it was at any moment a realistic ambition). Instead Europe will be forced to take a back seat again, have thousands of US troops on the ground for protection, while the US escapes unscathed if not considerably strengthened.
It's going to be a bitter pill to swallow.
For military it's not a reality today, but pre-pandemic it was absolutely a realistic goal many were working towards. Economically, it rivals the US in GDP terms and has some extremely strong sectors. Politically it's the main leader in human rights and regulation of new stuff that needs it (GDPR, Digital Markets and Services acts).
With the US in the process of imploding politically, the EU needs to maintain all of those and go even further.
What is new now is that the parties are forced to compromise given that the ideal scenario became dead past (and yet not fully).
I don't think renewables will be the full solution, but perfect is the enemy of good. If europe can reduce its gas dependence to the point where it can obtain the necessary supplies outside of Russia, that will be a win.
Sure, but that's always the case. The question is, how much more expensive. And that's going to vary a lot depending on how much the natural gas and electricity required is part of the overall price.
No doubt we're in for a rough transition, which we should have avoided by embarking on it twenty years ago, but I see any evidence for long term ruin. Not due to loss of energy imports from Russia, anyway.
German and Italian.
But at least we got something something demoncrency to some random country 90% of us have not been able to identify on a map before the war. I mean.. come on, it is not some brown-people shithole like Syria, Iraq, Yemen that it was totally OK to bomb. This is the evil Russia who we are talking here about!
And we are the good guys.
Better to live poor in a recession than having some random corrupt country where people anyway dont care who robs them being part of Russia.
NOT MY WAR.
You're quite a moron, or willfully ignorant, if you can't identify the second biggest country on the European continent.
> Better to live poor in a recession than having some random corrupt country where people anyway dont care who robs them being part of Russia.
No, if 'some random corrupt country' becomes part of Russia, you're next. You have a choice to live in recession, or to live under the Russian yoke. And these days, the first time you speak out against being under the Russian yoke, you're going to find yourself in a gulag deep in siberia. You may want to get yourself sized for your coffin in that case, you won't make it out alive.
I could post links to video clips of quiz shows where privileged citizens (public figures) of countries which owned very large parts of the world literally could not (exactly the case you point to, and much more - not even their own former and present colonies, not even after wars...).
So, while I agree with your statement (which I would not have written in those terms), do not underestimate the dire situation of societies.
The german government is not deciding against the people in this case. (i believe... a german). German people are highly against nuclear and think that renewables could immediately solve our problems. This is just a lack of information and a ton of ignorance on the peoples side.
Apart from that our politicians are really "soft" in my eyes and i don't believe they will help the situation much in relation to Russia.
edit: Don't know about the rest of EU. That's why i state "my" countries perspective more.
Why should it be not true? Planned maintenance is fully normal and certainly occurs on that infrastructure. The differences to normality are:
-- that sanctions have made the maintenance operations problematic: e.g. one turbine was held in Canada, and its release was agreed days ago only upon request from Germany. Why and how this process was impacted by the sanctions I do not know: it is what is reported by journalists;
-- that during normal operations, during maintenance on the main pipeline the gas is redirected to the secondary pipeline in Ukraine, hiding the technical works through such backup system. The secondary pipeline is inactive because of the war.
Anyone taking anything coming out of Russia at face value hasn't been paying attention or is painfully naïve.
Diffidence is a generic scalar, function result of the speaker - ok -, but diffidence over something specific calls for extra consideration, not just immediate dismissal.
Edit:
That the stream will return flowing - this was never something that we assumed. But for what the interruption of services is concerned, as pure normalcy, see the graphics at The Economist from S&P - the dents are quite regular...:
https://cdn.espresso.economist.com/files/public/images/20220...
Just in order to calibrate diffidence to the right places.
The funny thing is, the same people arguing against nuclear power (with mostly ridiculously unscientific arguments against all statistics) will be the ones complaining about the situation and that politics should save us all.
I am very interested in the pro/contra nuclear discussion and the more i know about it, the more our current situation saddens me.
What decision do you have in mind?
Throwing nuclear out the window and becoming so dependent on Russian gas? Not predicting Russian Imperial dreams of ruling the Europe?
OR
Trying to curb Russia during the war the best they can.
Because we need not to forget that Europe is at war. It is Ukrainians who are doing all the fighting ATM but all the western world is very much involved.
Europe is not at war. Or at least it wasn't until some politicians decided it was their business to intervene in somebody else's war. This is certainly against their own citizen.
I am an EU citizen myself and I did not consent to join this war.
> Not predicting Russian Imperial dreams of ruling the Europe?
Sorry, but that was never the case and will never be the case.
> Throwing nuclear out the window and becoming so dependent on Russian gas?
Bingo! However, that was not Russia's fault. It was definitely self-sabotage.
Do you consider Ukraine not Europe? What is it then?
> I am an EU citizen myself and I did not consent to join this war.
You need to be naïve to think that anybody "consents" to a war.
> > Not predicting Russian Imperial dreams of ruling the Europe?
> Sorry, but that was never the case and will never be the case.
Please refer to any rhetoric from Russian ruling class e.g. https://tass.com/politics/1432657 "the creation of an open Eurasia from Lisbon to Vladivostok".
My guess would be that you are "sitting far from the war" and thinking that it is not yours. However countries in the beginning of WWII had exactly the same sentiments - "we are far and it is not ours". Until it knocks on your door. This is why EU reacts, EU wants to solve this while it is not so close.
> Do you consider Ukraine not Europe? What is it then?
What kind of argument is this? Just because this entity is geographically part of the same region as my country doesn't mean I need to choose anything less than the best deal I can get on any products from wherever I choose.
If his wife wants to leave, it is completely understandable and acceptable that he wants to kill her.
HN is not a place for arguments like this but I am sorry to say to you that you are naïve, self-serving and seem to lack any values.
And yes, I may be naive thinking that politicians should serve their citizen first rather than citizen of another country. It's easy to talk about values, but harder to put the said values in practice when you are cold and hungry. Most people in Eastern Europe have a very hard life already.
It is isolated conflict that should be solved between countries involved.
If Russia is selling gas (anything) cheaper you should just buy it as it serves citizens of your country.
Throwing nuclear is a mistake but it has nothing to do with Russia.
My arguments are:
Russia has "Imperial ambitions" towards Ukraine, Georgia, Baltics and etc. Putin is stating that collapse of Soviet Union was the biggest mistake ever, all the internal communications in Russia are very aggressive, Putin was threatening nuclear weapons in the beginning of the war and etc. Medvedev is on another level threatening everybody around - see my previous comment for example.
This is where geography becomes important. While conflict is in Ukraine now, a lot of people believe that it might spread.
Why? Because Russia is influencing EU politics, using soft-power, social media to influence opinions and etc. Russia is very much involved for a long time already. It is not like German addiction to Russian gas was not influenced by Russia. Russia has further ambitions, always had. Russia is not just calmly existing inside of its territory. It always had global agendas. Like any other country.
Values. In the end Europeans have some values and most importantly EU is built on some fundamental values. Democracy, human rights and etc. Authoritarian country starting land wars in the Europe and threatening others does not sit right with it.
I can't agree that "most people in Eastern Europe have a very hard life already". Define "most" and "very hard life". It just means nothing. The thinking is that being at war is on another level "very hard".
So keeping in mind these it looks natural for EU to get involved. Because there is a belief in values and a belief that if Russia is not stopped, conflict can roll over to further countries. A lot of rhetoric from Russia actually state it.
> Values. In the end Europeans have some values and most importantly EU is built on some fundamental values. Democracy, human rights and etc
So we should be voting whether we want to support Ukraine, a non-EU entity, in any way - whether through imposing sanctions to Russia (which will later bite us back) or through sending them weapons (which will only escalate the war). It seems like you are arguing for straight out authoritarianism: joining a war against popular support.
> I can't agree that "most people in Eastern Europe have a very hard life already". Define "most" and "very hard life". It just means nothing. The thinking is that being at war is on another level "very hard".
If you spent any time with regular people in the Eastern Europe you would understand. But again, you are arguing that we are or should be in a war and hence this is acceptable. It is not. It is pure gaslighting. At this point it seems like you are pro-war and would say anything to convince people that they should be part of a war. I wonder why.
Again refer to Medvedev's comment about "the creation of an open Eurasia from Lisbon to Vladivostok".
Then again what would be Russia's interest in USSR? Do you believe that Russia has any rights to Poland, Ukraine, Estonia?
If you join a war against somebody that never attacked you in the first place, you are an aggressor, regardless of what they did to others.
No. Very normal ethos is that if you see something occurring that looks "wrong", first you assess to be sure, then upon confirmation you intervene.
Normally the difficulty is in assessment. Sometimes it is not even difficult.
I thought it started to show when you mentioned that Russia being interested in borders of USSR. But then you backtracked from it.
> If you join a war against somebody that never attacked you in the first place, you are an aggressor, regardless of what they did to others.
That would be crazy, wouldn't it? Any bigger country could just attack any neighbor and all other would just continue as if nothing happened? In your mind Russia can just attack e.g. Estonia and everybody should just ignore it? Basically you are not agreeing to it but it is a thing between Estonia and Russia only.
You are either Russian troll or just consumed too much Russian propaganda. Just listen to yourself.
Everybody should just continue trading with Russia because it is the best for their citizens.
Russia invading other countries is just between Russia and victim country.
If any other country is against aggressor they are "involving citizens into war". They should vote if they want to involve into war.
Geography is not important for you. You are ignoring anything I say about Russian rhetoric.
Classic whataboutism "look at Iraq". As if somehow Iraq justifies Russian aggression.
I don't think you are "let's just trade with Russia because it is the best for us". You are just pro-Russia and that's it.
Dude, Estonia is NATO, so that is a very different story. NATO would definitely have to intervene. Not that I agree with that either, but I guess it is part of some contract.
You are the one who came up with the "borders of USSR" theory, and I agreed in that I couldn't care less if they took over Ukraine or some of the -stans. As long as they leave my country alone, which was not part of the USSR, it is none of my business what wet dreams Putin has. That is where I draw my line in the sand. So no, I didn't "backtrack".
The argument with Iraq is a valid one because what you are saying is essentially that the same rules would not apply to one aggressor (the US) and another one (Russia). So it is you, my friend, who has been consuming too much propaganda, I am afraid.
> I couldn't care less if they took over Ukraine or some of the -stans.
> As long as they leave my country alone
Maybe this says everything. Must be really naïve or shortsighted if thinking like this. You would just trade with some serial killer as long as the price is right and he doesn't kill you. At least as long as you pay for the goods.
That is against /some/ of their own citizens - which since the rushed invention of politics (management of conflicting interests and ideals) is what is normal, so there is no news there.
The EU did not reduce their attempts of buying gas from Russia.
In favour of what? Dependency on the US gas at x2 the price? How's EU industry supposed to remain competitive at this energy prices?
That can only be accomplished by the EU pumping their own gas and oil, building their own nuclear power plants, etc.
There is no lack of natural resources in Europe. Just a lack of planning, and an excess of unrealistic green ideology.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-07/the-us-is...
It’s ironic to think that Europeans suspected ulterior motives from the US and so you literally cozied up to the fucking Russians. Europeans really know how to pick winners.
The numbers worry, but as the article says, 1/3 of deliveries is from Europe itself. If people need do with that, it's bad, but not catastrophic.
Europe and Russia are both getting destroyed economically.
I’d imagine that Europe will be looking to quickly bring around “peace” in Ukraine, much to Ukraine’s detriment starting Q1 2024
In it, the author argues that the end of global trade and energy has arrived, and that the endless economical growth of the past ~ 70 years will never return.
It's scary how much the war in Ukraine seems to be triggering exactly those phenomena the book talks about. Energy crisis, food crisis, economical downturns.
Observing how the world changes with this war (and also how covid completely fucked our globalized supply chain) it's clear to me how brittle globalization and capitalism actually is.
The coming 10-20 years will be hella interesting.
And I am meeting more Russian colleagues than ever in the office, so I do not think that there is less desire by the peoples to work together and trade and travel. It is single heads of state which are disrupting the global community and trade, even if it is to the clear detriment to them and their population.
So yes, I am worried quite a bit about them succeeding and in consequence setting back humanity, but I remain fundamentally optimistic, that common sense prevails.
That's interesting, because I had the opposite impression. In the midst of a very complex situation, with a significant percentage of the world literally frozen in place, not only did we not experience famine but also managed to create economic growth. The book you describe could have (and has been) written any time in the past 100 years and still sound true, while being ridiculously inaccurate.
[0] https://www.politico.eu/article/russias-rt-sputnik-ban-raise...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Enforcement_Act
[2] https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-rt-media-telegram-ukr...
[3] https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-to-prosecute-use-of-...
[4] https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/03/30/pers-m30.html
Just like truth, neutrality, free speech, etc don’t either.