And there are still fools who think that economic integration somehow prevents wars, which was shown to be false after WWI. These people said if Europe just paid a bunch of money for Russian energy they'd obviously never attack them. See what's happening with China and the US as more proof that handing over your economy doesn't placate anybody
I am German and very pro nuclear, but this is conspiracy bs. And why make such a grand claim without a single source?
https://www.eenews.net/articles/devin-nunes-claims-russia-is...
Dominique Reynié: "We found that Gazprom funded environmental NGOs that provided ministers to various governments, such as Belgium, which then advocated abandoning nuclear power".
https://twitter.com/ziontree/status/1497998920739274757
> For instance, the Soviets used front organizations to influence the anti-nuclear movement, the initiative that most visibly put Western leadership on the defensive. West German Interior Ministry and FBI reports concluded that Soviet-linked organizations were successfully swaying local peace movement initiatives to conform to Moscow’s positions
https://warontherocks.com/2017/09/russian-active-measures-in...
So it happened but how effective it was is questionable.
Every competing energy source lobby is probably trying to stack the chances against each other, but the activists were not by and large funded by Russia.
> These people said if Europe just paid a bunch of money for Russian energy they'd obviously never attack them.
You can't expect any party to hold still forever. If you provoke your partner long enough they might react at some point. In the long-term that is basically a guarantee.
I think the sole reason the west moved away from Nuclear is because it sounds scary and because the oil countries had a strong interest in maintaining the non-nuclear status quo.
To use an old phrase, shit happens. When it happens where a Nuclear Power Plant is, the happening continues for a very, very long time. That kind of liability is not worth the risk and of course there are other power solutions than the fossil/fuel nuclear divide.
As a single data point, I just asked my wife (who, for background, is well educated and pays close attention to the news), and her guess was "hundreds".
The modern mass media has a lot to answer for.
There is a tram going on a track, killing 10 children each week. You can switch it yo another track where it has a small chance of killing a thousand and you will be blamed for that.
Pitting nuclear against coal is fighting a straw man. The alternative is renewables. With a tiny fraction of the negative side-effects either nuclear or of fossil energy brings.
The part I felt had merit is that none of Europe's lofty solutions to safely storing/disposing of the waste output ever came to anything. I believe until this day that industry is still trying to work out how to dig 30km down to safely store the waste underground.
That said I haven't kept up to date on any progress or better solutions.
But Onkalo is one of the few actually built long term nuclear waste storage locations anywhere.
It is for domestic nuclear waste only. There is no desire to become the international dumping ground for nuclear waste.
Tbh I believe the waste should be reprosessed as fuel and burnt in reactors instead of burial.
But non-proliferation things make that impossible.
The are actually more expensive then simply developing the reactors to burn up that fuel.
Its just crazy that we live in this world.
The US collected money from nuclear plants for 50 years for disposal, and had plenty of money to develop waste burning reactors. And yet that money is totally unused. While politicians dead-lock on this idiotic Yucca Mountain project.
Its beyond sad the state we are in.
No sanctions? No finland minister asking to ban russian tourists from schengen?
Really?
Ok.. turn the ac then!
Us providing guns and trainning is not war?
Eu providing arms and guns is not war?
Economic sanctions are not war?
War is not a movie with bang.
War is happening now.
It started when they sunk the war ship russian..
> It started when they sunk the war ship russian..
I'm sensing this is a (((they))) kind of they.
No.
> Eu providing arms and guns is not war?
No.
> Economic sanctions are not war?
No.
> War is not a movie with bang.
No.
> War is happening now.
Yes between Ukraine and Russia.
Though, this being HN, I'd like to point out that you are technically correct, the best kind of correct. There is no official declaration of war between the EU and Russia (even if one could figure out how to do that).
Of course in practice there is very much a proxy war going on on Ukrainian soil. It is being done fairly openly at that: Weapons shipments are mentioned on the news, and eg. the movements of EU-based AWACS and Drones (patrolling along borders and over black sea, peeking in and providing intelligence) are also not hidden.
Poland stands out as a massive military logistics hub without which the Ukrainian army would struggle to import any Western stuff.
If the Poles weren't under the protective umbrella of NATO, I suspect that the Russians would already have tried to destroy Rzeszow airport.
>“It’s quite a curious foundation. It is a puppet construction,” said Sascha Müller-Kraenner, head of Environmental Action Germany, a green charity, which is challenging the legality of the organisation both in the German courts and with the European Commission.
and German politicians from pretty much every single party have been taking bribes from Russia for years. Their energy policy of simultaneously shutting down coal but not spinning up any nuclear made them reliant on Russian natural gas, which they've been warned about by the US for years and are now paying the price for
from 2019 - https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/06/06/how-europes-green-p...
and a video from 2018 of Germany's UN delegation quite literally laughing at the suggestion they'd be reliant on Russia for energy if they proceeded with Nordstream 2. Some good schadenfreude here- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfJv9QYrlwg