You don’t understand how bad it could get in Europe this year
fortune.com
fortune.com
Pakistan ranks 17th most dangerous, definitely doesn’t sound like the safest.
[0] https://www.weforum.org/reports/global-gender-gap-report-202... (Table 1.1)
[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/breannawilson/2019/10/11/this-p...
https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2012/what-the-forb...
The author of TFA is a Fortune staff member:
> Tristan Bove is an editorial fellow with Fortune's news team covering geopolitics, energy, and the U.S. housing market.
Here's the thing: people know things aren't going to be like they were one year ago. In fact a lot of people have been proactively taking measures, both consumers and governments.
We also know things aren't going to be GREAT!
But this type of shit - sorry for the coarseness, but I do fit these articles into the "shit bucket" - doesn't seem to serve any purpose, or add any new development or insight.
It just seems to try to increase the frequency of the Russian narrative.
What Forbes seems to miss, apparently, is that this was a deliberate choice with the support of Europeans. This is the price we're willing to pay to help to sink down an aggressive state and warmonger. Or at least, not help it flourish.
I don't see you refute the numbers, you're just attacking the messenger.
> This is the price we are willing to pay
Oh interesting. Yea you're sure the majority of your people are willing to starve and freeze for the sake of corrupt politics and a pseudo-moralistic cause? Have you asked them?
Perhaps speak for yourself only. And good luck to you and your family doing your part in reducing gas demand if you're so "willing".
You really shouldn't speak on behalf of other people. I don't remember anyone being asked for their opinion or given a choice on this matter.
I'm sure people who work minimum wage jobs and are just trying to get by don't have the luxury to wage a questionable ideological and economic war, something you seem to take for granted.
For many people such a drastic increase in energy prices is the difference between barely getting by and choosing which days to go hungry.
Are you saying Russia never directly sponsors/publishes articles?
It might have taken that long in normal times. In times of crises, it can be done in as little as half a year [1]. Expect more terminals to become operational in the coming (half) year.
[1] https://www.rtvnoord.nl/nieuws/956102/lng-terminal-in-eemsha...
Also, there's no mention anywhere of what production stops would cause for other countries. Can you imagine building a chip plant without ASML? No. That means they can force rather high prices worldwide.
They certainly are correct that it's going to be difficult, but taking about nuclear power plants who needed to shut down due to a hot summer? That seems like a strawman to me, because their cooling is going to be fine in winter.
Let's see, only time will tell.
This has been talked about, promised on, strategised all across Europe. It's a matter of national policy in countries such as France and Poland, and was always a major talking point in nuclear, hydro, geothermal, solar, wind projects.
Trump was just a broken clock.
No, you're completely wrong.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-eu-summit/obama-tells...
From where you getting your news?
Man, I SO much wish for him to be a competent good moral leader, since is slowly inching towards next presidency. As European I don't care if he is republican or democrat at all. Just from that position of extreme power don't make the world a worse place long term for everybody apart form Americans. We all share this tiny planet, what goes around comes around eventually.
But there are very few proofs of that, even completely ignoring his twitter brainfarts (which is relatively easy since I dont do twitter, but it leaked into all other news). No reason to expect he will be anyhow different from last time, only more senile/petty. And he was very petty and childish last time. If I had an acquaintance like him around me, I would detest and avoid him simply due to him being a proper a-hole.
But its entirely possible that he was good at realpolitik (ie repeatedly praising MBS and Putin since they held a lot of power, yet criticizing chinese as clear competition to US). Its just not very visible outside qanon and similar nutcase ultra right movements which filter media very selectively.
And the stuff he praises isn't just fluff, Trump tends to praise the most illiberal and autocratic parts of Putin's behavior.
The lack of contingency planning is down to a mix of corruption, incompetence, and yes some naivete.
Just for the record, here is another quote from the man, including his own correction: "My people came to me, Dan Coats came to me and some others saying they think it’s Russia. I have President Putin, he just said it’s not Russia. I will say this, I don’t see any reason why it wouldn't be. [...] I have great confidence in my intelligence people but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today".
Ukraine should have given a non-NATO guarantee in January 2022. As we can see now, NATO is not required for defending Ukraine because it gets massive military help regardless.
Instead, Zelensky had his 15 minutes of fame in the Munich "peace" conference, talking about getting nuclear weapons.
I don't think Merkel foresaw that kind of stupid escalation. But the U.S. is secure as always.
First, no, no nation should be forced to surrender it's sovereignty in such a manner.
Second, if they were in NATO, it would have been a deterrent and they wouldn't have been invaded in the first place.
Third, how the hell is it still possible that there are people who believe anything coming out of Russia? They have lied so much it's not even funny, why would you take their lies at face value? Why do you think they wouldn't have invaded anyways? What would have stopped them?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-eu-summit/obama-tells...
I am against all this 4-bureaucrats-decide whether we enter a war or not, with the devastating consequences for energy and the nuclear risk at which they could potentially involve us in.
The opinions about who is bad or good in this war, I do not care. I do not support wars or war involvement. Diplomacy. When you cannot with diplomacy and it is not really your duty, just stay away.
If Russia comes knocking at your neighbour(ing country)'s doors, wouldn't you want to help them defend? Lest they come knocking on your door shortly after?
For the defending side, in most cases war is the lesser evil compared to giving up. Aside from standout examples in like Denmark in WW2. But that is extremely early occurrences.
You should ask this to every ukranian that goes to die there instead of talking in their name and that just want to leave in peace instead of being locked down in their country to fight, meaning their life is in the hands of others that force them to go to the war to kill each other.
This is exactly what I am demanding from EU: do not decide in my name things that block trade, create energy scarcity and on top of that I have to finance. If someone is willing to fight this cause, of course the european bureaucrats the first ones, go fight in the war, but do not involve the rest of us. If some day they come to my door I will decide on that basis. It seems there are a lot of excuses to get into a war that is over 5000 km away from my country. By this measure we should all fighting each other all the time almost.
I do not like to be involved into a nuclear risk being at the opposite side of Europe. This is all absurd, no matter the rest of the arguments that are made about how bad or good Putin or Ukraine are.
They decide and we pay. Good arrangement! If these people had to pay with their personal wealth do you think they would do it? They would run away god knows where to hide god knows how much money from favors and a ton of things we might not know. A politician is probably the kind of person I trust the least. I am not talking about specifics. I say the profession. Most are bad.
„Living in peace“ in this case means running away some 5000km. When Russians come, living in peace doesn't work. And the initial plan was to go much further than Ukraine... Just check out the Putin's ultimatum to NATO to retreat to 1997 borders.
> This is exactly what I am demanding from EU
And I'm demanding the opposite. What are we going to do?
> It seems there are a lot of excuses to get into a war that is over 5000 km away from my country
Well, in my case we have border with old good Russia and some actions is going on 30km from my whereabouts. Maybe eastern european union, focusing on our realities, doesn't sound that laughable, huh? Because people 5000km away certainly don't understand a thing about stuff over here. Just like we probably don't get your problems.
> I do not like to be involved into a nuclear risk being at the opposite side of Europe. This is all absurd, no matter the rest of the arguments that are made about how bad or good Putin or Ukraine are.
You're involved wether you like it or not. Such is life beyond „end of history“. Just like it was for centuries. Non-involvement is just bending over for whatever comes. And when it's Russians coming, it ain't pretty...
> They decide and we pay. Good arrangement! If these people had to pay with their personal wealth do you think they would do it?
Putin and his gang are gamblers. They certainly risk their personal wealth/power/lifes. But the possible prize is too damn big to resist. And they ain't West-style politicians caring about pockets. They already have so much money their grandchildren won't be able to spend. They want old good power. And pages in history books.
I fiercely oppose to choices from others and consequences for a third one. If someone finds very important for their country, for their freedom or for whatever, no matter russian, ukranian or spanish, go get a weapon and contribute to the war. Do not count on me, but if someone wants to do it and puts their words where they put their choices, that is ok.
Choosing for others, no, no and no. Never, ever. Over my dead body I would let someone send one of my relatives to a war because someone decided what is important or not for someone else.
As for Russians, it's not „Putin's war“. Russians got what they wanted for a long time. Many of those who are running today were happy with the war till it came banging at their door. Look at Russian history of the past 300 years. Many people over here do believe Russia is the exceptional saviour of whatever. Just look at ecstasy over annexing Crimea. Even opposition had to play along because saying anything against it would not be accepted by society at large.
Some Russians saw writing on the wall since 2008 or even earlier. Many left after 2014. The most optimist ones stuck till spring of this year... But there's no large enough mass of people to do anything and overthrow the regime :D
> no matter russian, ukranian or spanish, go get a weapon and contribute to the war
Ukrainians ain't „contributing to the war“. They're defending their home.
> Choosing for others, no, no and no. Never, ever. Over my dead body I would let someone send one of my relatives to a war because someone decided what is important or not for someone else.
Ultimately such is life. Going to war feels more personal, but others are guiding your life every day. And human societies built out precisely because of this group work. Individually, humans can't do much. Wether against nature or other humans who do organise. And neither other humans, nor nature doesn't care about your feelings.
But the bigger problem is when others' inaction prevents those who do want to intervene. Coming back to East vs West in europe. West was calling us „Rusophobes“ for years. Well, it turns out West was „Russophiles“ instead. Yet old line still holds and West seem to be holding East on a leash to not do too much against Russia. Because muh contributing to war... :( In other words, making choices for others.
This makes it looks like there is a real risk of Russia invading Germany or any other European country, while they are having difficulties already achieving their goals in Ukraine.
In doing that you are also ignoring all the historical factors that contributed to that current situation, which are very specific to Ukraine and go back several decades, and buying into the US propaganda that Putin just went crazy and wants to conquer the whole of Europe for imperialistic goals.
Europe doesnt begin with Germany on the east, in fact russia is biggest european country based on land size. Ukraine, baltic states, V4 states, Romania, Bulgary, Finland etc would all be under direct threat because whatever made up reasons or twisted history (for some pretty hilarious reasons they chosen "nazis" ignoring the fact that in Russia neonazis are by far the biggest group in whole Europe, and do get quiet support from state itself).
There is no limit to russian apetite. The idea that if Ukraine would fell in few days they would stop forever and just be happy with achievement is dangerously naïve. Currently its a state run by mobsters who understand only mobster logic - power, rule of stronger and deterrence. If they could have whole Europe, why not? Obviously they can't seeing how ineffective their army is, but the apetite of big egos is endless
Because of the Western countries that are getting involved.
So why should I buy into the narrative that they are gonna be able/it's their intention to invade all the Baltic states, Poland, Romania etc... which are also NATO members?
Such approach just feeds aggressors to give it a shot. Because why not.
I think it is a very reasonable approach. By that measure we have to go to all wars where there is some cause to fight for wherever they happen. That just feeds violence and strengthens states and reduces freedom (bc there are excuses to put all kind of restrictions depending on how bad the situation they created gets), something I am not very keen on.
I know I will get negatives for saying this, but it is just my honest opinion. You want something, you work for it. Want war? Go to war, want peace? Be peaceful and diplomatic in the first place unless 100% self-defense is the only option. It is not fair to involve everyone else, less when the consequences can be seen already in the energy side. I hope it does not get worse with any nuclear stuff (I really think it will not happen) but this is unnecessary.
The question is if you as a society want to be seen as a legitimate partner. After the war, Eastern Europe will have many questions to certain West countries. If you want to stick to no-war-above-all, then many countries won’t be able to trust you. What is an ally worth if you know he will bail at first sign of trouble?
Personally I hope West societies will take a very good long look in the mirror. Or here in the East we will need a new Union.
Life improvements is not thanks to EU. It was already improving fast before EU membership. It's just returning to normal state before soviet era. Moldova have other issues (Padniestre/Transnistria). Albania was much worse in pre-1990 too, so naturally it will take longer to catch up.
A I'd even say that EU membership slowed it down. We're curbed by same regulations that is forcing West industry to Asia. Local businesses are acquired by West companies before they develop R&D to compete with West. And we can't safeguard our markets to give breathing space to local companies. On top of that, a lot of EU money were pocketed.
After membership fees, money syphoned away by corrupt politicians, EU money flowing back to West because we can't guard local companies etc, I don't think EU is beneficial to East. IMO we'd be better off had whole ex-Warsaw-pact stayed away from EU for couple decades. NATO is damn nice though.
You seem to have a short memory when the invasion began and there was an uproar on plenty of major cities all over Europe - and we've seen no counter protests at the same time. So, clearly, it wasn't 4 bureaucrats.
But I do not want to be involved in unnecessary problems. This was something much more local than a 5-6000 km away thing...
If something really wrong happens, how avout all of us that did not want to get involved?
Diplomacy or nothing in this case. But there is much more to it... under the covers and you and I know it.
Staying is also an option, but then you either have the aforementioned "very bad time", or you fight (and almost definitely die).
Which shit-sandwich would you like? They all taste like shit, and you have to eat one.
There is no diplomatic solution to a bullet to the head. In case it wasn't clear, by "very bad time", I'm talking about torture and murder.
And sure, there's variation by geography / proximity to russia. But it's nowhere near as strong an effect as you claim.
[0] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/at-your-service/files/be-hear...
[1] https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/api/deliverable/download/fil...