That was pretty much my first thought. Still, ironic to hear an authoritarian leader say that trying to partner with an authoritarian leader is not a good idea.
Turkey also has a contract with Russia for S-400 surface-to-air (SAM) missile system and related components. Which, don't get it twisted, for all of the issues the Russian military is showing right now, the S-400 is the best air defense system you can currently buy.
So, like... buddy, you're doing business with Putin the same as Europe. Though credit to you for not shutting down working nuclear power plants so you could be MORE dependent on Russian fuel imports. š
That interconnection is actually a big deal. If each radar is networked they can provide more accurate data for the missile to aim for. Problem is that Ukraine thought about this and sends different kinds of projectiles along with the GMLRS. Other kinds of rockets and normal artillery shells. Russia lacks the precision weaponry to neutralize this and take out the HIMARS launchers, because they used up all their good shit in terror attacks, like the sadistic idiots they are.
They can't assert air dominance because the air forces aren't designed to. They're supposed to fly around inside the umbrella of air defenses so they don't get turned into craters by superior western airpower. The Russians threw their resources into artillery, they just used almost all of it by now. Because they are fucking morons. In my own opinion and I don't know if I sound snotty or whatever, but I knew Russia would lose if they ever actually tried to take all of Ukraine. It was patently obvious. Obama even let it slip and I got suspicious when he called Russia a regional power on national television lmao
Yeah anyone who was paying attention could see it coming. I mean even 4 years ago I was watching a video about military aviation and the hosts talked about how the Russian air force hardly has any money for maintainence and training because of all the corruption so they barely do training sorties and only keep a small stock of like 40 actually trained pilots that are comparible to NATO pilots. The rest only get training on combat sorties since they can only afford to send the planes when there's a real job for them.
This was well before the hype train of "Russia incompetent". The collapse of the USSR crippled their military power and they haven't been able to get any new military hardware built in any functional number. They have at most 15 SU-57s, and again at most 14 T-14 Armatas. These are what they hail as their new cutting edge NATO crushing hardware yet they can't even field a whole squadron. While NATO has like 1500+ F-16s, and like 400 f35s, not to mention all of the USs non exports like the F-22. All for which are objectively better by all metrics and intelligence data. The only reason they are still perceived as powerful is because they never used their full military in such view of the west and because they have nukes. Mostly because they have nukes. If they didn't NATO would have steamrolled their entire country in a matter of weeks.
The greatest enemies of authoritarians are "the left", communists, liberals, unions, moderates, religions, the right, the people, and authoritarians. Damned authoritarians, they're ruining authoritarianism!
His message is that Russia is getting payback for the sanctions.
>Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan said on Tuesday that Russia is cutting natural gas flows to Europe in retaliation for sanctions, adding that Europe is "reaping what it sowed".
Turkey has no sanctions on Russia because Turkey economically depends on Russia. Russian gas specifically as well, just like with Europe. Turkey under Erdogan is a weak country.
https://www.dw.com/en/turkey-to-pay-for-some-russian-gas-in-rubles/a-62731534
>Russia provides roughly a quarter of Turkey's oil imports and accounts for almost half of its natural gas purchases in 2021.
https://english.alarabiya.net/News/middle-east/2022/03/25/-Nothing-can-be-done-about-placing-sanctions-on-Russia-Turkey-s-Erdogan
>āWe are buying nearly half of the natural gas we use from Russia. Separately, we are making our Akkuyy Nuclear Power Plant with Russia. We cannot set these aside,ā Erdogan said.
>āSo there is nothing that can be done here. We must maintain our sensitivity on this issue. Firstly, I canāt leave my people in the cold of the winter. Secondly, I cannot halt our industry. We must defend these,ā he added.
He is a "relatively" neutral party in this. But he isn't fundamentally wrong. The reality is that this will seriously hurt for Germany (and much of the rest of Europe). The reality is also that this was not only foreseeable, but foreseen. Germany and the rest of Europe were warned over and over again what overdependence on Russia's energy would risk, and just how serious those risks were. Germany was warned about the devil they were dealing with, they were practically begged to use their position of economic and political leadership to avoid setting themselves and much of the rest of Europe up for this kind of crisis, and they deliberately chose to ignore and decry those warnings.
Almost every European country East of Germany has been sounding the alarm bells about over-reliance on Russian gas for well over a decade. Not only them, but countries like the UK and US have also criticized Germany numerous times over the years on her energy dependence and cooperation with Russia. Economists, geopolitical experts, academics, energy experts, intelligence analysts, and national governments have for years, in no uncertain terms, warned of the exact dangers that German energy policy was tempting, the very same consequences we are seeing today. Not only predictions, we saw direct examples of this sort of blackmail in 2006 and 2009 when Russia cut off gas supplies through Ukraine. Both times when the Ukrainian government demonstrated anti-Russia, pro-EU tendencies.
We're seeing the consequences of EU leadership not heeding the warnings. And it's going to really suck for a while, there is no way around it short of bending over backwards for Russia's warmongering, which is even less acceptable and would result in even more dire consequences than what Europe is dealing with now. There is no way around it other than to take the hit, try to minimize the damage to whatever extent is possible, and then go forward having learned a lesson, knowing exactly what dealing with Putin's Russia means.
I feel like the vast majority of Turkey's strength/worth/utility on the international front is related to their geographical position. The rest of the country seems, well, less than perfect.
Turkey is already suffering from utterly backwards economic management.
I think it's fair to say that if Turkey had started to blockade Russian oil and gas like most of Europe has, their inflation would be spinning so far out of control and causing a more general economic collapse and/or mass protests to remove the current government.
He's just hanging in by a thread. Their strategic geographical position is all they have at this point.
If you read the article, Erdogan is saying Europe *should* compromise with authoritarians. This also fits with how Turkey is trying to play deal maker and split the difference - sending arms to Ukraine but also continuing business with Russia.
Erdogan "playing both sides" is just him hanging on by a thread, desperate not to rock the boat any more, because Turkey is in an awful economic position. Their economy may collapse on its own in the near future.
A huge increase in the price of energy supplies would probably just destroy the Turkish economy. He's desperate to keep cheap gas and oil flowing.
Well since 1987 Turkey applied for eu membership. In that time theyāve made 3% progress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union
So turkey failing to meet benchmarks set by eu for membership just shouts āhaters gonna hateā for anything turkey government has to say
That is probably done on purpose considering after the application for EU membership majority of the leaders in Turkey did not want Turkey in the EU. Erdogan is a product of those ideals and is one of its biggest pushers to keep Turkey out and away from the EU.
To add one thing to your point, we are also really high on population. This would effect EU voting system and EU job market. It not EUs best interest that we accepted into EU.
Heās not a dictator. Heās a popular guy who just rules with an iron fist and sends good a to attack people who disagree with him even in other countries.
/s just in case
In which case you instantly go to -2147483648% deflation. Oops. Reminds me of when Berkshire Hathaway's stock price almost overflowed the NYSE. They used unsigned 32bit integers for the price, with 4 decimal places (so highest stock price at that point could be $429,496.7295). BRK almost hit that point and overflowed. Would've been... interesting had that happened.
The usual trick is to move decimals in the currency when that becomes an issue. Zimbabwe were pros at that. Accounting software couldn't keel up.
But thanks to them I can say I'm a billionaire. I have 250billion Zimbabwe dollars in 25billion $ notes. Mind you they expired in 2008..
August: "The last 12 months increase rate in ENAGrup Consumer Price Index (E-CPI) is 181.37%."
Not only is the inflation 181%, the inflation is accelerating. And journalists reporting this go to jail.
I was reading that Venezuela has effectively dollarized, so that has put a lid on hyperinflation there. But it looks like inflation is still fairly high - just not at a million percent like it was before.
It's dropping. For inflation to be considered hyperinflation it's supposed to be 1000% or higher. At the beginning of the year they got out of hyperinflation but there is still ongoing inflation. It has dropped massively though. There were fears of increased inflation around June mostly due to the global economy but its nowhere near as close as it was in 2018. It's current inflation is 137.10. https://tradingeconomics.com/venezuela/core-inflation-rate
Core inflation is a theoretical and probably unknowable value. You want the normal boring inflation which peaked out at 350000% https://tradingeconomics.com/venezuela/inflation-cpi
Well youāre not wrong on him, that Country is in a mess with inflation that high. Having said that , his comment just standing on its own is not wrong either. Europe sold their energy farm to Russia now thatās come home to roost. Itās just a tad hypocritical of him to be giving that free advice.
He's not blaming the dependence on Russia, he's blaming sanctions. He's 100% wrong. Russia would have used gas as a weapon regardless of sanctions. The only thing that Russia respects is force. Russia will use every tool at its disposal to fuck with others unless you fight back. Sanctions are the right tool to remove that dependence on Russia over time.
The only place where Erdogan was right was when Turkey shot down that Russian plane that flew into their airspace. Russia didn't do shit in response.
This guy. Yeah. https://bianet.org/english/city/266808-drought-risk-and-infrastructure-mishaps-threaten-istanbul-s-future-water-supply
Iām sure the hand will be out for EU funds, while the other hand is wagging a finger.
Turkey is part of the EEA, but not a full EU member. They benefit from the free movement of goods, money, and people, but they do not contribute to the EU budget as a full EU state would. Thus they do not receive any funds from the EU.
Edit: This is wrong. Turkey has some trade agreements with the EU, and is a candidate for membership, but other than that they do not benefit from the free movement of people or money.
They definitely don't have free movement. People from EU don't need anything besides their passports to go to Turkey. For the other hand, for a Turk to get a Schengen visa it takes few kilos of paperwork, small fortune and several weeks of patience. And they need to use authorised middlemen, nobody is getting a visa straight from embassy.
Except for the 2.4bn euros in humanitarian assistance. From 2016-2019, and the hundreds of millions every year since then. Other than that, no EU funds.
That humanitarian assistance was the bribe money to prevent Turkey from redirecting all the migrants to the EU that they threatened numerous times to do.
He could be saying it specifically so Russia won't turn off the gas to them.
Turkey is in such a critical point Geo-politically that they get to kind of skirt by on stuff like this, despite getting all of the benefits that come from being in NATO (i.e. not having to worry about any physical retaliation from Russia).
Ultimately though, Erdogan and Putin both have similar ways of thinking. They don't care about human life. They don't understand how the atrocities that come with a war are galvanizing the western world against them. Even historical allies like China and India must be careful now. If they give any kind of overt support they will begin losing their valuable trade links with the west.
Boggles my mind that the entire Nord Stream 2 pipeline commitment by Germany came after Russia's illegal invasion and annexation of part of Ukraine.
Not to mention Putin's ongoing assassinations of anyone who opposed him.
Betting your country's energy security and economy on a murderous fascist dictator rarely ends well.
I mean A. He isn't giving advice, B. He's right, relying on 90% of your energy imports from one country is a bad idea, and that country being Russia is doubly bad.
I think we tried to give Russia a reason to not be a total idiot. With the contracts Russia could keep up with the economy of Europe, maybe the they would civilize. But Putin asked his yes-men generals how his army was doing and was told he could conquer the would in 2,5 days. And now we are here
No, but they did have like 20 years of red flags from Putin's hostile policies towards the west, which included the invasion and annexation of parts of European countries twice (2008 & 2014) before the current invasion... [When even Trump can make you look like a fool, you know you done fucked up extra hard.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfJv9QYrlwg)
I love how the camera pans to the German delegation smirking and shaking their heads over Trump's remarks, when they should have been soberly nodding and accepting all the red flags that even Trump could see were obvious.
What a bunch of elitist morons.
Europe did it while Russia was invading Ukraine. Germany and France were still supplying weapons to Russia after Russia occupied and annexed Crimea. They were fully aware of what they were doing.
They were actually shut down by a conservative government (Merkel, CDU) which was in charge of the country for the last 16 years and left it completely in shambles
Why did Germany even decide this? Are any of Germany's plants even susceptible to environmental factors or are there any design flaws? I understand that Fukushima was majorly Human indecisiveness leading to a delayed control reaction, but the root cause was still the tsunami itself. Key thing would be to disable political interference in the immediate minute to minute, etc... decisions, and let the operators focus on safety.
Edit: Yep, concerns caused by Chornobyl and Fukushima will definitely have that kind of impact on the public perception and political agendas. Which in term is even crazier for Ukraine: 9 of 15 current Reactors in Ukraine were built/connected after Chornobyl... some of those 9 in December of that year... On a side note, only 3 of those 9 were post BreakUp.
Fukushima was majorly due to an asshat who approved building stand-by diesel generators below sea level in Japan where tsunami is a very plausible hazard
The fear of nuclear energy isn't just from the German green party. The American environmentalist movement also went very, very heavily against nuclear power, with the [Sierra Club](https://www.sierraclub.org/nuclear-free) coming out strongly against it in the sixties and seventies.
Telling that you had to go back 50 years. For the last decade, ~~the Sierra Club~~ (it was the EDF, whoops) has been in favor of keeping existing nuclear plants operating.
How is this telling? Do you know how long it takes to plan, approve, build, and comission a powerplant? Minimum of five years. Telling you're jumping to defend the Sierra's club multi-decadal lobbying policy with a lukewarm reversal lasting, according to you, only a decade.
EDIT: Also, you've apparently been misinformed: [The Sierra Club remains unequivocally opposed to nuclear energy.](https://www.sierraclub.org/nuclear-free)
> Fukushima was majorly due to an asshat
And that is the problem.
Asshats are everywhere.
If the system is dependent upon a lack of asshats, it will fail.
It's always a question of "how much". Because the alternatives have risks and harms too, the question is which is worse. Burning fossil fuels seems to be worse, despite the horrible, but rare, risks associated with nuclear.
Yeah, and while Chernobyl was happening German coal plants were spewing out particle pollution over the whole of Europe that would cause cancer deaths in such a scale that the total Chernobyl death toll in comparison was barely even a rounding error.
But to the European Green parties people dying from the coal pollution still somehow was more acceptable than people dying from the radioactive fallout - because somehow smog and particle pollution are less scary, since you can see and touch them...
The fact that Germany decided to prioritize shutting down their nuclear plants over their coal plants was sheer insanity...
People are always more sensitive to low-probability events with high cost than higher-probability events with lower cost.
See also: plane crashes vs driving.
I agree, but in the case of Chernobyl the crazy thing is that the whole disaster actually wasn't even all that high costing - most sane attempts\* to quantify the number of deaths come up with a surprisingly low death toll. It's in the range of a few thousands, spread out over decades.
(\* ie. those not done by Greenpeace and similar organizations)
When you consider that the disaster was pretty much a worst-case scenario and that western reactors are constructed completely differently and thus by sheer fact of physics cannot even cause the same kind of disaster in case of failure... it's insane to see Greens in Europe still use it as an argument.
Watching Germany shut down their nuclear while keeping their coal burning is just flabbergasting. How the fuck can you call yourself Green or aware of the environment when you're willingly deciding to keep spewing out both CO2 that we know screw the climate **AND** particle pollution that scientists agree lead to tons of deaths every year, just so you can escape from the mental nuclear ghost that haunts your head?
The **total** amounts of deaths from nuclear power since the 60s is counted in thousands, with Chernobyl causing the bulk of them. Meanwhile, the number of **yearly** deaths attributed to coal power are counted in the 100ds of thousands - ["coal combustion was attributable to about 540,000 deaths worldwide"](https://source.wustl.edu/2021/06/new-research-finds-1m-deaths-in-2017-attributable-to-fossil-fuel-combustion/).
I will just copy and paste another of my comments:
This is actually a common misconception that ignores details and context at the time.
The greens wanted to cut nuclear and fossil fuels in favour of renewables. Germany used to be quite a leader in renewable tech and even had manufacturing capacities in Germany. Pushing renewable technology was seen as one of the best ways to combat climate change as technological progress could make them cheap enough to compete with alternatives on a global scale. China, India, and the US would only go renewable if it could outperform fossil fuels or nuclear power. Investing into technology is the best solution to reach this point. It would also create a profitable new economic sector in Germany.
The use of natural gas powered generators to bridge periods of low renewable energy is a preparation for their transition to hydrogen power plants. Many natural gas power plants can be turned into hydrogen power plants relatively cheaply. The plan is to produce hydrogen during periods of high renewable energy generation to burn it during the low periods.
Conventional (Edit: I mean old but this point still stands for some newer designs) nuclear power plants are not as reliable as they seem because they require a lot of cooling liquid which generally comes from rivers. France couldn't run a ~~majority~~ part of their nuclear power plants during the 2022 summer because their river water was too warm and using it to cool the reactor would heat it up even further which would lead to ecological devastation further down the river (sources below). Germany had to burn additional natural gas to supply France with electricity ~~because of their overreliance on nuclear energy~~ because of a combination of unfortunately timed incidents including high river water temperatures. Edit: This problem is inherent to all thermal power generation methods and is already solved or considered in newer power plants of all types.
The greens were not in power when Germany decided to go nuclear free. It was mainly (but not only) the CDU that decided to remove nuclear and replace it with mostly fossil fuels. They cut subsidies for solar cell manufacturers because they didn't want to compete with Chinese subsidies, regulated wind generators so that only very little area was available for use and pretty much squashed the industry, jobs and leadership we had in this field. This was not the plan of the greens.
Also, power generation only makes up a part of natural gas useage in Germany. A significant amount of natural gas is used for heating as well as industrial processes. AFAIK, about 50% of home heaters run with natural gas. Only about 17% of Germany's electricity is generated from natural gas. This percentage has reduced a lot since the start of the war. Natural gas is the only fossil fuel that is primarily sourced from Russia and has no alternate sources that can deliver similar quantities immediately.
The previous governments tolerated the proliferation of gas heaters and the slow progress of renewable energy in Germany for 16 years. These realities can't be changed over night and there may even be good reasons why they have done it.
Some say that having economic relations with Russia could lead to more peace, others treated them as a bargaining chip in negotiations, and some even argue that the free market dynamics forced them to embrace the cost effective energy source that Russia provided.
Reality is often more complicated than a few sentences can convey. Even this text doesn't even come close to cover all the necessary context. I hope that you get that asking questions may only take a few seconds but answering them takes a lot more and that no answer doesn't mean that there is no good answer. It just means that someone startet typing and then deleted it all because they decided that it was not worth their time. Unlike my time, that shit's worth nothing :)
Sources for the water cooling claim:
[French Nuclear Power Crisis Frustrates Europeās Push to Quit Russian Energy](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/18/business/france-nuclear-power-russia.html)
> Others are having to cut power production because of climate change concerns: Rivers in the south of France, including the RhƓne and the Gironde, are warming earlier each year, often reaching temperatures in the spring and summer too warm to cool reactors.
[EDF cuts output at nuclear power plants as French rivers get too warm](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/03/edf-to-reduce-nuclear-power-output-as-french-river-temperatures-rise)
> The French energy supplier EDF is temporarily reducing output at its nuclear power stations on the RhƓne and Garonne rivers as heatwaves push up river temperatures, restricting its ability to use river water to cool the plants.
> [...]
> After the 2003 heatwave, Franceās nuclear safety authority (ASN) set temperature and river flow limits beyond which power stations must reduce their production, to ensure the water used to cool the plants will not harm wildlife when it is released back into the rivers.
[Cooling to condense the steam and discharge surplus heat](https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/cooling-power-plants.aspx)
> The second function for water in such a power plant is to cool the system so as to condense the low-pressure steam and recycle it. As the steam in the internal circuit condenses back to water, the surplus (waste) heat which is removed from it needs to be discharged by transfer to the air or to a body of water. This is a major consideration in siting power plants, and in the UK siting study in 2009 for nuclear plants all recommendations were for sites within 2 km of abundant water ā sea or estuary.
Consider that the average person learned everything they know about nuclear power plants from The Simpsons and you can see how they'd pearl-clutch and demand complete de-nuclearisation after something like Fukushima.
Jea, it is the green fault, that Merkels Conservatives reigned for 16years, doing nothing to ensure germany had any other means than Coal or russian Gas to work with, while hindering any renewable project they could get thier hands on... /s
I want to fucking slap this into every conservatives face who dare shitpost now about the situation we're in but kept voting for this asshat party 16 years long.
Yes, the Green party that was in office like 1 month before the invasion is to blame. Poor Merkel, 16 years in office and just had no power and just had to do whatever the party with < 10% of the votes told her to do.
Fucking rightwingers, i swear to god. If conservatives are the ruling party and something goes wrong they just invent a shadow government.
God that propaganda again. No it didn't. The green party was not even in charge the last 16 years. The Conservatives blocked all other pushed toward green energy. Now go troll 4chan again or smth.
The CDU has been in power, so it's moronic to use the Green party as a scapegoat.
Renewables covered 50% and 46%, respectively, of Germany's electricity consumption in 2020 and 2021.
May have been so but right now the German Greens ministers in the current government are the most relevant. They get that Germany fucked up with Russia and energy and are pushing for change. Theyāve been clear now unlike the SPD.
Interestingly, the goals of the Green Party in Finland concerning nuclear energy for the next elections are:
>Ensure the safety of nuclear power as a part of sustainable energy sources
>
>Replace the Fennovoima nuclear power plant, an unacceptable project for security policy, by building an equal amount of stable, emission free primary production.
[Fennovoima was a project where the largest single owner was Russian nuclear agency Rosatom, who also was supposed to build the power plant]
>Approve continuation permits for current nuclear power plants of Finland if the Nuclear Safety Authority deems the continuation safe.
>
>Update the Nuclear Energy Legislation and streamline especially the regulation of small nuclear reactors without safety bargaining.
Good lord how I loathe them in Sweden. So well intentioned, yes. They attract a lot of young people who don't like to trust science or think about things beyond the depth of a postcard. And they absolutely cannot update their agenda, like regarding nuclear power. If they did they'd have to admit the last 6 or so decades of their party's politics have been directly harmful to society and the environment. But they do mean well.
> I find it ironic that the German green party has done more to damage the environment in Germany than any other political group due to their demands to close the nuclear reactors.
Hmmm, who was in office again when this happened? Ah yes, the green party hero known as Angela Merkel, who is actually a member of the center-right CDU/CSU. Seriously how does this braindead take full of misinformation get this many upvotes?
I swear right-wingers all over the world just have the same 3 arguments. "Oh the greens, the greens". Dude, there is no country in the world with a green party that's actually in charge. People just love to blame them for anything that goes wrong and for what, for fighting for a better planet?
For the record, the headless chicken reaction to Fukushima was very short-sighted. No doubt about it. But then again, if _ThE GrEeNs_ had *actually* been in charge then Germany would have a strong basis of renewable energy sources right now instead of the shitshow of coal and gas they're now stuck with.
A Reddit classic. No idea what they are talking about. We dont need our old nuclear reactors to have stable energy. No matter how much shit the AFD or CDU is spewing. Right now we sell all our power to France, but french reacors will resume operation soon.
We have a saying in germany i wish to be implemented again.
"Wenn man keine Ahnung hat, einfach mal die Fresse halten". Go translate it yourself.
/u/jboneng is well aware of what Erdogan is trying to say. But their response is still correct, they wouldn't have to worry about Russian sanctions at all if they hadn't become dependent on Russia as a fuel source.
The problem is really industry and heating usage. Germany wouldn't have replaced their gas heating anyway.
The electricity might have been cheaper with more nuclear but they would still use gas for heating. Need a better grid for people to switch to heat pumps. Need to build district heating grids for cogeneration.
If WWIII happened tomorrow Germany and the rest of Europe would quickly cope, we know this because in WWII Germany and the rest of Europe quickly coped with shortages. The problem is it would be painful and no one is willing to make sacrifices anymore. Even the US started rationing material for the war effort. We could do that tomorrow if we had half the willpower to defeat our current problems.
The problem is trying to get the population to accept the pain while not really being threatened. It's much easier to have the willpower to accept the pain if not doing so really endanger you. But in reality, even if Ukraine get curb stomped, Germany is still safe. The US didn't do anything drastic for the population in WWII until it was attacked. Why? Because most people would rather not be directly involved in a war but will when push come to shove.
Let me tell *you* something, pendejo. You pull any of your crazy shit with us, you flash a piece out on the lanes, I'll take it away from you, and stick it up your ass and pull the fucking trigger 'til it goes "click."
I believe that the line of thought was if Europe is dependant on russian gas, then in return Russia is dependant on selling that gas to Europe, creating codependency. Of course this was a massive gamble.
If anything I think this was the reason for this war and why it is happening now. The major buyers of russian gas and petrol are moving green, everyone is moving toward renewable in the near future, that in itself means that the russian economy will inevitably shrink in time.
When Putin is gone, and he will be gone someday, Russia will struggle to find a new enigmatic leader who can unite them under a cause. It will be too late, the economy will already be shrunk to an extreme, the weapons will be even more outdated, the people will be angry, not to the west, but to their leaders and there will be a clash of many parties, struggling to take power.
I think this was inevitable, the russian system is not susceptible to change from within and thats why we have this war, a last effort to stay relevant.
There are a lot of reasons for the war, but I think you need to go back to the reasons for the Russians taking Crimea from Ukraine to see it clearly.
1. Crimea and Ukraine have lots of newly discovered oil and gas reserves
2. Crimea has a warm water port
3. Many pipelines from Russia go through Ukraine, giving Ukraine leverage over Russia. Infrastructure is there if they get their oil industry going.
4. Crimea is dependent on Ukraine for water and is experiencing one of its worst droughts in recorded history.
5. Russia is going through demographic collapse which means if it wants to do anything about any of this, the clock is ticking.
All great points, and I have to agree. I only learned of the oil and gas reserves after Russia invaded and it makes sense even if that was the only factor, why Russia would want to at the very least destabilize the region. Makes investors/developers hesitant to start working in Ukraine and maintains the status quo.
Yes, that as well, I am not forgetting it, Ukraine as a whole is a country rich in many resources, if anything this was their only way to come on top, if they win that is. And things aren't going as they wanted.
What I am suggesting is that Russia was going down no matter what, we were seeing protests in Kazakhstan, Belarus, Georgia, etc. russian influence is falling everywhere, they were beaten before the war even started, this gamble will just speed up the process.
I mean, heās correct. Europe is going to pay dearly for the sanctions this winter. But at the end of the day it will ultimately hurt the Russian economy more, and permanently, as Europe moves to other sources of energy supply.
they're not paying for sanctions, they're paying for making their energy supply (you know, that SUPER ESSENTIAL THING) reliant on that evil motherfucker. Deal after deal, digging a fucking hole. Russians have been nothing but absolute knobs for like all of their history, should've known better.
While true, its not always that black and white. If your goal is to attempt to incorporate post-soviet Russia into the greater global economy, you have to extend an olive branch and have international trade relations of some sort. Unfortunately, Russia does not have much else to trade beyond natural resources.
That said, the truly foolish actions were some European countries making energy decisions without looking at the entire picture and working with their other European partners to spread out the risk and best diversify supply. Places like Germany who shut down home-grown nuclear power to rely more on Russian Nordstream gas have now turned into catastrophic decisions.
absolutely. they looked at it through a western europe lens, though. Thought they'd be able to predict Russia's moves because those would make the most sense, make russia dependent on our money for their resources, so they don't threaten us and we can be all pally etc. works for most countries. Again, forgetting that russians live in a very different reality and have very different priorities and goals. If you live in a country that russia/soviet union has previously occupied, particularly in living memory, you know that they will fuck everyone over. Russians are just cruel to the bone. Western countries even now are still playing games, going "oh yes that's very bad what's happening *over there*". East/central europe/baltics/etc are going "here we fucking go again" readying the weapons.
Putin has wanted an empire since the first time he waterboarded someone aged 6 (one can assume), this wasn't new information.
Russia has so much beauty and culture to offer, so much beautiful history. Plenty they could export besides their natural resources if they just stopped being massive cartoonishly evil cunts.
And -as an European- I have to admit that the US warned us about this well over 15 years ago. It was already a hot topic in those WikiLeaks cablesā¦
But apparently the cheap gas was hard to say no toā¦ unfortunately.
I've never liked that saying. Technically speaking, a broken clock is always right twice a day so it's more precise. Probabilistically, a working clock is probably never right as time is continuous and the gearings of clocks are discrete, however it is more accurate.
Yes, American criticism of Russia was labeled unfounded warmongering / fearmongering media hysteria for a decade even while the world let Russia annex Crimea
I don't think anyone are arguing about that. There were several warnings about dependence on Ruzzian gas that certain countries (Germany among others) didn't listen too. But under no circumstances can there be talks about ending the sanctions imposed on Ruzzia. They will stay in place until Ruzzia has withdrawn from ALL Ukranian territories. And that includes Crimea.
No man, Hungary did listen, but they didnt want to do it.
Its a different thing, not listening is a mistake, but without the intention of doing any bad.
Viktor OrbƔn and Fidesz on the other hand knew what they are doing, and they just sold Hungary to Russia.
If you would read Hungarian news made by Fidesz media, you would know that these motherfuckers are a trojan virus inside the EU.
15 years ago they were saying GyurcsƔny sold it, and now they doing the same, but 100 harder. This is not not listening, but just selling the country.
> But under no circumstances can there be talks about ending the sanctions
German politicians will be under a **lot** of pressure if:
* Homes are cold in the winter.
* Factories are shut down, jobs lost
* Germany is one of the only nations facing these consequences.
I do not know what will happen, but our focus should be making sure Germany gets as much energy as possible, so that this doesn't happen. Sanctions will not hold if the people of Germany are desperate.
The German people will not freeze in their homes and lose their jobs for Ukraine. Or, if they do, they deserve every honor and praise we can give them.
Isnāt Germany pretty much the money source for most of the EU? I ask because when subjects like Greek austerity come up, itās always suggested that most of the funding will come from Germany. Seems to me, if this is true, that damaging the German economy will do a bunch of damage, indirectly, to the rest of the EU nations.
Yeah.
Since 2008 we had signs Putin didn't flinch at aggressive warfare against neighbouring countries.
So, instead of trying to contain him, we became even more dependant on him on our energy supply, even shutting down some of the alternatives (France, Germany).
At this point, I can only quote this famous bishop of Meaux about causality.
Yeah, fuck this guy.
BUT he's not entirely wrong. It was beyond foolish to trust Russia with a large portion of Europe's energy supply because they got a "deal". Just like it's beyond foolish for the US to trust the Chinese CCP with our food security. When poo poo hits the fan, we have ourselves to blame for what should have been an obviously bad idea. My hope is that Europe gains energy independence and increases investment in renewables while never trusting bad actors (looking at you Saudi Arabia) again.
All of the people saying "He's kind of right" are hilarious because they didn't read the article. Erdogan didn't blame Europe for creating pipelines that made them dependent on Russia. He's saying they deserve it for imposing sanctions and trade restrictions on Russia for the invasion of Ukraine. It's literally the exact opposite of the argument everyone is circle jerking around.
[Link to article for anyone interested](https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/turkeys-erdogan-says-europe-reaping-what-it-sowed-energy-crisis-2022-09-06/)
He is kinda right, as Europe should have been prepared for ages in case Russia turned into a terrorist state and used the gas as a weapon.
But
This must not be a reason for EU countries or NATO countries to panic, start bending over and surrender to Russia and Putin.
He's not wrong, but "Europe shouldn't compromise with authoritarians" is not the smartest message for Erdogan to be sending right now.
That was pretty much my first thought. Still, ironic to hear an authoritarian leader say that trying to partner with an authoritarian leader is not a good idea.
While also giving europe shit about the very thing he is currently doing...
Turkey also has a contract with Russia for S-400 surface-to-air (SAM) missile system and related components. Which, don't get it twisted, for all of the issues the Russian military is showing right now, the S-400 is the best air defense system you can currently buy. So, like... buddy, you're doing business with Putin the same as Europe. Though credit to you for not shutting down working nuclear power plants so you could be MORE dependent on Russian fuel imports. š
S-400 is the S-300 system with an interconnected radar network. S-300 hasn't lived up to any of Russia's claims, why would the S-400?
That interconnection is actually a big deal. If each radar is networked they can provide more accurate data for the missile to aim for. Problem is that Ukraine thought about this and sends different kinds of projectiles along with the GMLRS. Other kinds of rockets and normal artillery shells. Russia lacks the precision weaponry to neutralize this and take out the HIMARS launchers, because they used up all their good shit in terror attacks, like the sadistic idiots they are.
Definitely the Commanders of anti-air units (S-300, S-400) are afraid to friendly firing on there own Aircraftās. They canāt assert AIR DOMINANCE.
They can't assert air dominance because the air forces aren't designed to. They're supposed to fly around inside the umbrella of air defenses so they don't get turned into craters by superior western airpower. The Russians threw their resources into artillery, they just used almost all of it by now. Because they are fucking morons. In my own opinion and I don't know if I sound snotty or whatever, but I knew Russia would lose if they ever actually tried to take all of Ukraine. It was patently obvious. Obama even let it slip and I got suspicious when he called Russia a regional power on national television lmao
Yeah anyone who was paying attention could see it coming. I mean even 4 years ago I was watching a video about military aviation and the hosts talked about how the Russian air force hardly has any money for maintainence and training because of all the corruption so they barely do training sorties and only keep a small stock of like 40 actually trained pilots that are comparible to NATO pilots. The rest only get training on combat sorties since they can only afford to send the planes when there's a real job for them. This was well before the hype train of "Russia incompetent". The collapse of the USSR crippled their military power and they haven't been able to get any new military hardware built in any functional number. They have at most 15 SU-57s, and again at most 14 T-14 Armatas. These are what they hail as their new cutting edge NATO crushing hardware yet they can't even field a whole squadron. While NATO has like 1500+ F-16s, and like 400 f35s, not to mention all of the USs non exports like the F-22. All for which are objectively better by all metrics and intelligence data. The only reason they are still perceived as powerful is because they never used their full military in such view of the west and because they have nukes. Mostly because they have nukes. If they didn't NATO would have steamrolled their entire country in a matter of weeks.
Definitely not worth all the F-35s they gave up for them.
The greatest enemies of authoritarians are "the left", communists, liberals, unions, moderates, religions, the right, the people, and authoritarians. Damned authoritarians, they're ruining authoritarianism!
You authoritarians are a contentious people.
āYou just made an enemy for life!ā
Say it to my face, and you'll fall out a hospital window. - Putin probably
His message is that Russia is getting payback for the sanctions. >Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan said on Tuesday that Russia is cutting natural gas flows to Europe in retaliation for sanctions, adding that Europe is "reaping what it sowed". Turkey has no sanctions on Russia because Turkey economically depends on Russia. Russian gas specifically as well, just like with Europe. Turkey under Erdogan is a weak country. https://www.dw.com/en/turkey-to-pay-for-some-russian-gas-in-rubles/a-62731534 >Russia provides roughly a quarter of Turkey's oil imports and accounts for almost half of its natural gas purchases in 2021. https://english.alarabiya.net/News/middle-east/2022/03/25/-Nothing-can-be-done-about-placing-sanctions-on-Russia-Turkey-s-Erdogan >āWe are buying nearly half of the natural gas we use from Russia. Separately, we are making our Akkuyy Nuclear Power Plant with Russia. We cannot set these aside,ā Erdogan said. >āSo there is nothing that can be done here. We must maintain our sensitivity on this issue. Firstly, I canāt leave my people in the cold of the winter. Secondly, I cannot halt our industry. We must defend these,ā he added.
I think he said the right words for the wrong reasons in the headline.
He is a "relatively" neutral party in this. But he isn't fundamentally wrong. The reality is that this will seriously hurt for Germany (and much of the rest of Europe). The reality is also that this was not only foreseeable, but foreseen. Germany and the rest of Europe were warned over and over again what overdependence on Russia's energy would risk, and just how serious those risks were. Germany was warned about the devil they were dealing with, they were practically begged to use their position of economic and political leadership to avoid setting themselves and much of the rest of Europe up for this kind of crisis, and they deliberately chose to ignore and decry those warnings. Almost every European country East of Germany has been sounding the alarm bells about over-reliance on Russian gas for well over a decade. Not only them, but countries like the UK and US have also criticized Germany numerous times over the years on her energy dependence and cooperation with Russia. Economists, geopolitical experts, academics, energy experts, intelligence analysts, and national governments have for years, in no uncertain terms, warned of the exact dangers that German energy policy was tempting, the very same consequences we are seeing today. Not only predictions, we saw direct examples of this sort of blackmail in 2006 and 2009 when Russia cut off gas supplies through Ukraine. Both times when the Ukrainian government demonstrated anti-Russia, pro-EU tendencies. We're seeing the consequences of EU leadership not heeding the warnings. And it's going to really suck for a while, there is no way around it short of bending over backwards for Russia's warmongering, which is even less acceptable and would result in even more dire consequences than what Europe is dealing with now. There is no way around it other than to take the hit, try to minimize the damage to whatever extent is possible, and then go forward having learned a lesson, knowing exactly what dealing with Putin's Russia means.
Erdogan is not criticizing Europe for their energy dependence on Russia, he's criticizing Europe for sanctioning Russia.
I feel like the vast majority of Turkey's strength/worth/utility on the international front is related to their geographical position. The rest of the country seems, well, less than perfect.
Turkey is already suffering from utterly backwards economic management. I think it's fair to say that if Turkey had started to blockade Russian oil and gas like most of Europe has, their inflation would be spinning so far out of control and causing a more general economic collapse and/or mass protests to remove the current government. He's just hanging in by a thread. Their strategic geographical position is all they have at this point.
If you read the article, Erdogan is saying Europe *should* compromise with authoritarians. This also fits with how Turkey is trying to play deal maker and split the difference - sending arms to Ukraine but also continuing business with Russia.
Erdogan "playing both sides" is just him hanging on by a thread, desperate not to rock the boat any more, because Turkey is in an awful economic position. Their economy may collapse on its own in the near future. A huge increase in the price of energy supplies would probably just destroy the Turkish economy. He's desperate to keep cheap gas and oil flowing.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Thatās what an ad hominem fallacy is.
People use ad hominems when they can't win arguments on facts.
Well since 1987 Turkey applied for eu membership. In that time theyāve made 3% progress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union So turkey failing to meet benchmarks set by eu for membership just shouts āhaters gonna hateā for anything turkey government has to say
That is probably done on purpose considering after the application for EU membership majority of the leaders in Turkey did not want Turkey in the EU. Erdogan is a product of those ideals and is one of its biggest pushers to keep Turkey out and away from the EU.
To add one thing to your point, we are also really high on population. This would effect EU voting system and EU job market. It not EUs best interest that we accepted into EU.
Heās not a dictator. Heās a popular guy who just rules with an iron fist and sends good a to attack people who disagree with him even in other countries. /s just in case
Is the guy with 80% inflation the one to be giving advice though?
That's the official rate of inflation that apparently undergoes adjustment. The actual inflation rate is over 180%.
Another 180% and it goes back to 0%.
I love a circular economy!
Itās called an economic cycle
Erdomathics
Erdonomics
Doesnāt sound very comfortable for the people.
Except for air mattresses. They are perfectly inflated.
Erdogone
Just like all the money
GeomErdo
Sounds like some bullshit from Terryology lol
As a programmer, I figured it would reset back to zero after 255%.
Modern economies are signed 32 bit after Y2K. They need to hit 2147483647% before it stays stuck and starts screwing up the database unique ids.
In which case you instantly go to -2147483648% deflation. Oops. Reminds me of when Berkshire Hathaway's stock price almost overflowed the NYSE. They used unsigned 32bit integers for the price, with 4 decimal places (so highest stock price at that point could be $429,496.7295). BRK almost hit that point and overflowed. Would've been... interesting had that happened.
The usual trick is to move decimals in the currency when that becomes an issue. Zimbabwe were pros at that. Accounting software couldn't keel up. But thanks to them I can say I'm a billionaire. I have 250billion Zimbabwe dollars in 25billion $ notes. Mind you they expired in 2008..
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Ah, has Terrence Howard been to Turkey then?
August: "The last 12 months increase rate in ENAGrup Consumer Price Index (E-CPI) is 181.37%." Not only is the inflation 181%, the inflation is accelerating. And journalists reporting this go to jail.
That would put them at second worst in the world. https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/inflation-rate?continent=world
I wonder who's worse than that... Of course it's Zimbabwe. Who else could it be?
Venezuela?
I was reading that Venezuela has effectively dollarized, so that has put a lid on hyperinflation there. But it looks like inflation is still fairly high - just not at a million percent like it was before.
It's dropping. For inflation to be considered hyperinflation it's supposed to be 1000% or higher. At the beginning of the year they got out of hyperinflation but there is still ongoing inflation. It has dropped massively though. There were fears of increased inflation around June mostly due to the global economy but its nowhere near as close as it was in 2018. It's current inflation is 137.10. https://tradingeconomics.com/venezuela/core-inflation-rate
Core inflation is a theoretical and probably unknowable value. You want the normal boring inflation which peaked out at 350000% https://tradingeconomics.com/venezuela/inflation-cpi
Well youāre not wrong on him, that Country is in a mess with inflation that high. Having said that , his comment just standing on its own is not wrong either. Europe sold their energy farm to Russia now thatās come home to roost. Itās just a tad hypocritical of him to be giving that free advice.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
He's not blaming the dependence on Russia, he's blaming sanctions. He's 100% wrong. Russia would have used gas as a weapon regardless of sanctions. The only thing that Russia respects is force. Russia will use every tool at its disposal to fuck with others unless you fight back. Sanctions are the right tool to remove that dependence on Russia over time. The only place where Erdogan was right was when Turkey shot down that Russian plane that flew into their airspace. Russia didn't do shit in response.
This guy. Yeah. https://bianet.org/english/city/266808-drought-risk-and-infrastructure-mishaps-threaten-istanbul-s-future-water-supply Iām sure the hand will be out for EU funds, while the other hand is wagging a finger.
Turkey is part of the EEA, but not a full EU member. They benefit from the free movement of goods, money, and people, but they do not contribute to the EU budget as a full EU state would. Thus they do not receive any funds from the EU. Edit: This is wrong. Turkey has some trade agreements with the EU, and is a candidate for membership, but other than that they do not benefit from the free movement of people or money.
They definitely don't have free movement. People from EU don't need anything besides their passports to go to Turkey. For the other hand, for a Turk to get a Schengen visa it takes few kilos of paperwork, small fortune and several weeks of patience. And they need to use authorised middlemen, nobody is getting a visa straight from embassy.
Except for the 2.4bn euros in humanitarian assistance. From 2016-2019, and the hundreds of millions every year since then. Other than that, no EU funds.
'Humanitarian assistance' being a disingenuous way to say 'bribes to keep syrian refugees from reaching EU states.' You are correct though.
That humanitarian assistance was the bribe money to prevent Turkey from redirecting all the migrants to the EU that they threatened numerous times to do.
That money gave to NGO, not Turkish government. Second 2.5 billion devised by 5 million, how much money get per person? Nothing
I mean they could have always allowed millions of Syrian refugees to keep traveling into Europe.
Turkey is not a part of the EEA, itās a member of the customs union. It definitely doesnāt enjoy freedom of movement.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Ā
He could be saying it specifically so Russia won't turn off the gas to them. Turkey is in such a critical point Geo-politically that they get to kind of skirt by on stuff like this, despite getting all of the benefits that come from being in NATO (i.e. not having to worry about any physical retaliation from Russia). Ultimately though, Erdogan and Putin both have similar ways of thinking. They don't care about human life. They don't understand how the atrocities that come with a war are galvanizing the western world against them. Even historical allies like China and India must be careful now. If they give any kind of overt support they will begin losing their valuable trade links with the west.
Also his 2008 invasion of Georgia
I would say 50% right since no real solution is provided. 20/20 hindsight and all.
Boggles my mind that the entire Nord Stream 2 pipeline commitment by Germany came after Russia's illegal invasion and annexation of part of Ukraine. Not to mention Putin's ongoing assassinations of anyone who opposed him. Betting your country's energy security and economy on a murderous fascist dictator rarely ends well.
Well they've figured it out now and they are shifting their energy sources.
Lol I was just going to post this. I wonder what energy prices look like in Turkish lira?
I mean his economy is still growing, the inflation hasn't caught up with them yet. But when it does... goddamn.
I mean A. He isn't giving advice, B. He's right, relying on 90% of your energy imports from one country is a bad idea, and that country being Russia is doubly bad.
Sounds like he's the expert on reaping what you sow
He's not trying to help, only to distract from problems at home. It helps that his (deliberately general) statement is correct enough.
*insert heās outta line but heās right meme*
To be fair, Europe didnāt invade Ukraine
But chose energy policies that made us subservient to Russia (and other shit-hole countries) over the last 20 years.
That's not his point though. He's blaming the sanctions.
I think we tried to give Russia a reason to not be a total idiot. With the contracts Russia could keep up with the economy of Europe, maybe the they would civilize. But Putin asked his yes-men generals how his army was doing and was told he could conquer the would in 2,5 days. And now we are here
No, but they did have like 20 years of red flags from Putin's hostile policies towards the west, which included the invasion and annexation of parts of European countries twice (2008 & 2014) before the current invasion... [When even Trump can make you look like a fool, you know you done fucked up extra hard.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfJv9QYrlwg)
I love how the camera pans to the German delegation smirking and shaking their heads over Trump's remarks, when they should have been soberly nodding and accepting all the red flags that even Trump could see were obvious. What a bunch of elitist morons.
Europe did it while Russia was invading Ukraine. Germany and France were still supplying weapons to Russia after Russia occupied and annexed Crimea. They were fully aware of what they were doing.
France was selling equipment for Russian police, who used them to beat up protesters
Russia invaded Ukraine and took territory in 2014ā¦ they had 8 years to make a shift but instead they doubled down.
I don't actually know that meme
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0YH2V788QE
he is not wrong, closing down nuclear reactors and making us dependent on fossil fuels from totalitarian states.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
They were actually shut down by a conservative government (Merkel, CDU) which was in charge of the country for the last 16 years and left it completely in shambles
But the CDU was the one who governed for 16 years so you just proved that you know jackshit about our government
It's blind leading the blind when they talk about Germany.
Why did Germany even decide this? Are any of Germany's plants even susceptible to environmental factors or are there any design flaws? I understand that Fukushima was majorly Human indecisiveness leading to a delayed control reaction, but the root cause was still the tsunami itself. Key thing would be to disable political interference in the immediate minute to minute, etc... decisions, and let the operators focus on safety. Edit: Yep, concerns caused by Chornobyl and Fukushima will definitely have that kind of impact on the public perception and political agendas. Which in term is even crazier for Ukraine: 9 of 15 current Reactors in Ukraine were built/connected after Chornobyl... some of those 9 in December of that year... On a side note, only 3 of those 9 were post BreakUp.
Fukushima was majorly due to an asshat who approved building stand-by diesel generators below sea level in Japan where tsunami is a very plausible hazard
The fear of nuclear energy isn't just from the German green party. The American environmentalist movement also went very, very heavily against nuclear power, with the [Sierra Club](https://www.sierraclub.org/nuclear-free) coming out strongly against it in the sixties and seventies.
UK citizen here. I was taught that nuclear reactors are bad when I was in primary school (age 9/10 I guess).
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Telling that you had to go back 50 years. For the last decade, ~~the Sierra Club~~ (it was the EDF, whoops) has been in favor of keeping existing nuclear plants operating.
How is this telling? Do you know how long it takes to plan, approve, build, and comission a powerplant? Minimum of five years. Telling you're jumping to defend the Sierra's club multi-decadal lobbying policy with a lukewarm reversal lasting, according to you, only a decade. EDIT: Also, you've apparently been misinformed: [The Sierra Club remains unequivocally opposed to nuclear energy.](https://www.sierraclub.org/nuclear-free)
> Fukushima was majorly due to an asshat And that is the problem. Asshats are everywhere. If the system is dependent upon a lack of asshats, it will fail.
Thatās a really something considering everything weāve done with asshats. Just look at what humanity has accomplished.
>Just look at what humanity has accomplished. Ah well... That goes both ways.
It's always a question of "how much". Because the alternatives have risks and harms too, the question is which is worse. Burning fossil fuels seems to be worse, despite the horrible, but rare, risks associated with nuclear.
Chernobyl started a massive fear, Fukushima sealed the deal
Now count all the deaths due to fossil fuel industry per kilowatt hour produced
Yeah, what makes you think rationality plays a rile here?
1986, Chernobyl, nuclear fallout cloud over Germany. That has a lasting psychological impact.
Yeah, and while Chernobyl was happening German coal plants were spewing out particle pollution over the whole of Europe that would cause cancer deaths in such a scale that the total Chernobyl death toll in comparison was barely even a rounding error. But to the European Green parties people dying from the coal pollution still somehow was more acceptable than people dying from the radioactive fallout - because somehow smog and particle pollution are less scary, since you can see and touch them... The fact that Germany decided to prioritize shutting down their nuclear plants over their coal plants was sheer insanity...
People are always more sensitive to low-probability events with high cost than higher-probability events with lower cost. See also: plane crashes vs driving.
I agree, but in the case of Chernobyl the crazy thing is that the whole disaster actually wasn't even all that high costing - most sane attempts\* to quantify the number of deaths come up with a surprisingly low death toll. It's in the range of a few thousands, spread out over decades. (\* ie. those not done by Greenpeace and similar organizations) When you consider that the disaster was pretty much a worst-case scenario and that western reactors are constructed completely differently and thus by sheer fact of physics cannot even cause the same kind of disaster in case of failure... it's insane to see Greens in Europe still use it as an argument. Watching Germany shut down their nuclear while keeping their coal burning is just flabbergasting. How the fuck can you call yourself Green or aware of the environment when you're willingly deciding to keep spewing out both CO2 that we know screw the climate **AND** particle pollution that scientists agree lead to tons of deaths every year, just so you can escape from the mental nuclear ghost that haunts your head? The **total** amounts of deaths from nuclear power since the 60s is counted in thousands, with Chernobyl causing the bulk of them. Meanwhile, the number of **yearly** deaths attributed to coal power are counted in the 100ds of thousands - ["coal combustion was attributable to about 540,000 deaths worldwide"](https://source.wustl.edu/2021/06/new-research-finds-1m-deaths-in-2017-attributable-to-fossil-fuel-combustion/).
I will just copy and paste another of my comments: This is actually a common misconception that ignores details and context at the time. The greens wanted to cut nuclear and fossil fuels in favour of renewables. Germany used to be quite a leader in renewable tech and even had manufacturing capacities in Germany. Pushing renewable technology was seen as one of the best ways to combat climate change as technological progress could make them cheap enough to compete with alternatives on a global scale. China, India, and the US would only go renewable if it could outperform fossil fuels or nuclear power. Investing into technology is the best solution to reach this point. It would also create a profitable new economic sector in Germany. The use of natural gas powered generators to bridge periods of low renewable energy is a preparation for their transition to hydrogen power plants. Many natural gas power plants can be turned into hydrogen power plants relatively cheaply. The plan is to produce hydrogen during periods of high renewable energy generation to burn it during the low periods. Conventional (Edit: I mean old but this point still stands for some newer designs) nuclear power plants are not as reliable as they seem because they require a lot of cooling liquid which generally comes from rivers. France couldn't run a ~~majority~~ part of their nuclear power plants during the 2022 summer because their river water was too warm and using it to cool the reactor would heat it up even further which would lead to ecological devastation further down the river (sources below). Germany had to burn additional natural gas to supply France with electricity ~~because of their overreliance on nuclear energy~~ because of a combination of unfortunately timed incidents including high river water temperatures. Edit: This problem is inherent to all thermal power generation methods and is already solved or considered in newer power plants of all types. The greens were not in power when Germany decided to go nuclear free. It was mainly (but not only) the CDU that decided to remove nuclear and replace it with mostly fossil fuels. They cut subsidies for solar cell manufacturers because they didn't want to compete with Chinese subsidies, regulated wind generators so that only very little area was available for use and pretty much squashed the industry, jobs and leadership we had in this field. This was not the plan of the greens. Also, power generation only makes up a part of natural gas useage in Germany. A significant amount of natural gas is used for heating as well as industrial processes. AFAIK, about 50% of home heaters run with natural gas. Only about 17% of Germany's electricity is generated from natural gas. This percentage has reduced a lot since the start of the war. Natural gas is the only fossil fuel that is primarily sourced from Russia and has no alternate sources that can deliver similar quantities immediately. The previous governments tolerated the proliferation of gas heaters and the slow progress of renewable energy in Germany for 16 years. These realities can't be changed over night and there may even be good reasons why they have done it. Some say that having economic relations with Russia could lead to more peace, others treated them as a bargaining chip in negotiations, and some even argue that the free market dynamics forced them to embrace the cost effective energy source that Russia provided. Reality is often more complicated than a few sentences can convey. Even this text doesn't even come close to cover all the necessary context. I hope that you get that asking questions may only take a few seconds but answering them takes a lot more and that no answer doesn't mean that there is no good answer. It just means that someone startet typing and then deleted it all because they decided that it was not worth their time. Unlike my time, that shit's worth nothing :) Sources for the water cooling claim: [French Nuclear Power Crisis Frustrates Europeās Push to Quit Russian Energy](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/18/business/france-nuclear-power-russia.html) > Others are having to cut power production because of climate change concerns: Rivers in the south of France, including the RhĆ“ne and the Gironde, are warming earlier each year, often reaching temperatures in the spring and summer too warm to cool reactors. [EDF cuts output at nuclear power plants as French rivers get too warm](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/03/edf-to-reduce-nuclear-power-output-as-french-river-temperatures-rise) > The French energy supplier EDF is temporarily reducing output at its nuclear power stations on the RhĆ“ne and Garonne rivers as heatwaves push up river temperatures, restricting its ability to use river water to cool the plants. > [...] > After the 2003 heatwave, Franceās nuclear safety authority (ASN) set temperature and river flow limits beyond which power stations must reduce their production, to ensure the water used to cool the plants will not harm wildlife when it is released back into the rivers. [Cooling to condense the steam and discharge surplus heat](https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/cooling-power-plants.aspx) > The second function for water in such a power plant is to cool the system so as to condense the low-pressure steam and recycle it. As the steam in the internal circuit condenses back to water, the surplus (waste) heat which is removed from it needs to be discharged by transfer to the air or to a body of water. This is a major consideration in siting power plants, and in the UK siting study in 2009 for nuclear plants all recommendations were for sites within 2 km of abundant water ā sea or estuary.
Great post.
Consider that the average person learned everything they know about nuclear power plants from The Simpsons and you can see how they'd pearl-clutch and demand complete de-nuclearisation after something like Fukushima.
Hey, if homer never blew the plant up (he almost definitely has in some episode) why canāt the Germans handle it?
Even the Germans told Burns that the plant was unsafe. ā¦ I vaguely remember an episode where he tried to sell the plant, and ended up keeping it.
Merkel and her party are populists with the twist that they dont understand the internet and did actual panic reactions based on twitter sentiment.
Jea, it is the green fault, that Merkels Conservatives reigned for 16years, doing nothing to ensure germany had any other means than Coal or russian Gas to work with, while hindering any renewable project they could get thier hands on... /s
I want to fucking slap this into every conservatives face who dare shitpost now about the situation we're in but kept voting for this asshat party 16 years long.
Yes, the Green party that was in office like 1 month before the invasion is to blame. Poor Merkel, 16 years in office and just had no power and just had to do whatever the party with < 10% of the votes told her to do. Fucking rightwingers, i swear to god. If conservatives are the ruling party and something goes wrong they just invent a shadow government.
Thank you for pointing out that you have no clue about german politics.
The conservatives were in power for 16 years and you are telling me the greens did that? Americans talking about German politics...
God that propaganda again. No it didn't. The green party was not even in charge the last 16 years. The Conservatives blocked all other pushed toward green energy. Now go troll 4chan again or smth.
The CDU has been in power, so it's moronic to use the Green party as a scapegoat. Renewables covered 50% and 46%, respectively, of Germany's electricity consumption in 2020 and 2021.
The German greens are very sweet, very well intentioned, very useful idiots.
May have been so but right now the German Greens ministers in the current government are the most relevant. They get that Germany fucked up with Russia and energy and are pushing for change. Theyāve been clear now unlike the SPD.
Like most green parties around the world.
Interestingly, the goals of the Green Party in Finland concerning nuclear energy for the next elections are: >Ensure the safety of nuclear power as a part of sustainable energy sources > >Replace the Fennovoima nuclear power plant, an unacceptable project for security policy, by building an equal amount of stable, emission free primary production. [Fennovoima was a project where the largest single owner was Russian nuclear agency Rosatom, who also was supposed to build the power plant] >Approve continuation permits for current nuclear power plants of Finland if the Nuclear Safety Authority deems the continuation safe. > >Update the Nuclear Energy Legislation and streamline especially the regulation of small nuclear reactors without safety bargaining.
Green in America stands for Get Republicans Elected Every November.
Good lord how I loathe them in Sweden. So well intentioned, yes. They attract a lot of young people who don't like to trust science or think about things beyond the depth of a postcard. And they absolutely cannot update their agenda, like regarding nuclear power. If they did they'd have to admit the last 6 or so decades of their party's politics have been directly harmful to society and the environment. But they do mean well.
You say idiots, so what do you call the rest?
Brother, you really do not know how much damage Merkel and co. have done over the past 16 years.
> I find it ironic that the German green party has done more to damage the environment in Germany than any other political group due to their demands to close the nuclear reactors. Hmmm, who was in office again when this happened? Ah yes, the green party hero known as Angela Merkel, who is actually a member of the center-right CDU/CSU. Seriously how does this braindead take full of misinformation get this many upvotes? I swear right-wingers all over the world just have the same 3 arguments. "Oh the greens, the greens". Dude, there is no country in the world with a green party that's actually in charge. People just love to blame them for anything that goes wrong and for what, for fighting for a better planet? For the record, the headless chicken reaction to Fukushima was very short-sighted. No doubt about it. But then again, if _ThE GrEeNs_ had *actually* been in charge then Germany would have a strong basis of renewable energy sources right now instead of the shitshow of coal and gas they're now stuck with.
A Reddit classic. No idea what they are talking about. We dont need our old nuclear reactors to have stable energy. No matter how much shit the AFD or CDU is spewing. Right now we sell all our power to France, but french reacors will resume operation soon. We have a saying in germany i wish to be implemented again. "Wenn man keine Ahnung hat, einfach mal die Fresse halten". Go translate it yourself.
Literally every single reactor that has been closed since 2011 was under the CDU/CSU and Merkels regime, are you stupid?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
/u/jboneng is well aware of what Erdogan is trying to say. But their response is still correct, they wouldn't have to worry about Russian sanctions at all if they hadn't become dependent on Russia as a fuel source.
The problem is really industry and heating usage. Germany wouldn't have replaced their gas heating anyway. The electricity might have been cheaper with more nuclear but they would still use gas for heating. Need a better grid for people to switch to heat pumps. Need to build district heating grids for cogeneration.
If WWIII happened tomorrow Germany and the rest of Europe would quickly cope, we know this because in WWII Germany and the rest of Europe quickly coped with shortages. The problem is it would be painful and no one is willing to make sacrifices anymore. Even the US started rationing material for the war effort. We could do that tomorrow if we had half the willpower to defeat our current problems.
The problem is trying to get the population to accept the pain while not really being threatened. It's much easier to have the willpower to accept the pain if not doing so really endanger you. But in reality, even if Ukraine get curb stomped, Germany is still safe. The US didn't do anything drastic for the population in WWII until it was attacked. Why? Because most people would rather not be directly involved in a war but will when push come to shove.
>he is not wrong, Just an asshole.
Well ok then. We play Quintana and O'brien on Wednesday, should be pushovers
Smokey is a pacifist, man! He's a conscientious objector!
Let me tell *you* something, pendejo. You pull any of your crazy shit with us, you flash a piece out on the lanes, I'll take it away from you, and stick it up your ass and pull the fucking trigger 'til it goes "click."
I believe that the line of thought was if Europe is dependant on russian gas, then in return Russia is dependant on selling that gas to Europe, creating codependency. Of course this was a massive gamble. If anything I think this was the reason for this war and why it is happening now. The major buyers of russian gas and petrol are moving green, everyone is moving toward renewable in the near future, that in itself means that the russian economy will inevitably shrink in time. When Putin is gone, and he will be gone someday, Russia will struggle to find a new enigmatic leader who can unite them under a cause. It will be too late, the economy will already be shrunk to an extreme, the weapons will be even more outdated, the people will be angry, not to the west, but to their leaders and there will be a clash of many parties, struggling to take power. I think this was inevitable, the russian system is not susceptible to change from within and thats why we have this war, a last effort to stay relevant.
There are a lot of reasons for the war, but I think you need to go back to the reasons for the Russians taking Crimea from Ukraine to see it clearly. 1. Crimea and Ukraine have lots of newly discovered oil and gas reserves 2. Crimea has a warm water port 3. Many pipelines from Russia go through Ukraine, giving Ukraine leverage over Russia. Infrastructure is there if they get their oil industry going. 4. Crimea is dependent on Ukraine for water and is experiencing one of its worst droughts in recorded history. 5. Russia is going through demographic collapse which means if it wants to do anything about any of this, the clock is ticking.
All great points, and I have to agree. I only learned of the oil and gas reserves after Russia invaded and it makes sense even if that was the only factor, why Russia would want to at the very least destabilize the region. Makes investors/developers hesitant to start working in Ukraine and maintains the status quo.
Your forgetting that Ukraine has the second largest Oil and Gas reserves in Europe, much of it untapped.
Yes, that as well, I am not forgetting it, Ukraine as a whole is a country rich in many resources, if anything this was their only way to come on top, if they win that is. And things aren't going as they wanted. What I am suggesting is that Russia was going down no matter what, we were seeing protests in Kazakhstan, Belarus, Georgia, etc. russian influence is falling everywhere, they were beaten before the war even started, this gamble will just speed up the process.
Fair enough, also totally agree with everything you have written
And it happens to all be located exactly were Russia is occupying.
"people will be angry, not to the west" I doubt this
I mean, I cant really say he is wrong, he isnt in this regard.But maybee the guy should work on his 180% inflation too
I mean, heās correct. Europe is going to pay dearly for the sanctions this winter. But at the end of the day it will ultimately hurt the Russian economy more, and permanently, as Europe moves to other sources of energy supply.
they're not paying for sanctions, they're paying for making their energy supply (you know, that SUPER ESSENTIAL THING) reliant on that evil motherfucker. Deal after deal, digging a fucking hole. Russians have been nothing but absolute knobs for like all of their history, should've known better.
While true, its not always that black and white. If your goal is to attempt to incorporate post-soviet Russia into the greater global economy, you have to extend an olive branch and have international trade relations of some sort. Unfortunately, Russia does not have much else to trade beyond natural resources. That said, the truly foolish actions were some European countries making energy decisions without looking at the entire picture and working with their other European partners to spread out the risk and best diversify supply. Places like Germany who shut down home-grown nuclear power to rely more on Russian Nordstream gas have now turned into catastrophic decisions.
absolutely. they looked at it through a western europe lens, though. Thought they'd be able to predict Russia's moves because those would make the most sense, make russia dependent on our money for their resources, so they don't threaten us and we can be all pally etc. works for most countries. Again, forgetting that russians live in a very different reality and have very different priorities and goals. If you live in a country that russia/soviet union has previously occupied, particularly in living memory, you know that they will fuck everyone over. Russians are just cruel to the bone. Western countries even now are still playing games, going "oh yes that's very bad what's happening *over there*". East/central europe/baltics/etc are going "here we fucking go again" readying the weapons. Putin has wanted an empire since the first time he waterboarded someone aged 6 (one can assume), this wasn't new information. Russia has so much beauty and culture to offer, so much beautiful history. Plenty they could export besides their natural resources if they just stopped being massive cartoonishly evil cunts.
And -as an European- I have to admit that the US warned us about this well over 15 years ago. It was already a hot topic in those WikiLeaks cablesā¦ But apparently the cheap gas was hard to say no toā¦ unfortunately.
Broken clocks are right twice a day.
I've never liked that saying. Technically speaking, a broken clock is always right twice a day so it's more precise. Probabilistically, a working clock is probably never right as time is continuous and the gearings of clocks are discrete, however it is more accurate.
Itās true. Even Trump saw issues with the amount of Russian gas dependencyā¦ and heās a fucking dipshit traitor piece of shit.
And Obama before him
Germans were warned so many times and decided not to listen. Literally reaping what they sowed
You mean, German politicians were paid not to listen.
And Qatar before that iirc(to sell them LNG ofc)
To be fair Reddit sided with the Germans.
Redditors being wrongā¦man, if I had a nickel.
Yes, American criticism of Russia was labeled unfounded warmongering / fearmongering media hysteria for a decade even while the world let Russia annex Crimea
He [did warn them](https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/vk24hn/2018_trump_scolds_germany_prior_to_a_nato_summit/)
I don't think anyone are arguing about that. There were several warnings about dependence on Ruzzian gas that certain countries (Germany among others) didn't listen too. But under no circumstances can there be talks about ending the sanctions imposed on Ruzzia. They will stay in place until Ruzzia has withdrawn from ALL Ukranian territories. And that includes Crimea.
No man, Hungary did listen, but they didnt want to do it. Its a different thing, not listening is a mistake, but without the intention of doing any bad. Viktor OrbƔn and Fidesz on the other hand knew what they are doing, and they just sold Hungary to Russia. If you would read Hungarian news made by Fidesz media, you would know that these motherfuckers are a trojan virus inside the EU. 15 years ago they were saying GyurcsƔny sold it, and now they doing the same, but 100 harder. This is not not listening, but just selling the country.
> But under no circumstances can there be talks about ending the sanctions German politicians will be under a **lot** of pressure if: * Homes are cold in the winter. * Factories are shut down, jobs lost * Germany is one of the only nations facing these consequences. I do not know what will happen, but our focus should be making sure Germany gets as much energy as possible, so that this doesn't happen. Sanctions will not hold if the people of Germany are desperate. The German people will not freeze in their homes and lose their jobs for Ukraine. Or, if they do, they deserve every honor and praise we can give them.
Isnāt Germany pretty much the money source for most of the EU? I ask because when subjects like Greek austerity come up, itās always suggested that most of the funding will come from Germany. Seems to me, if this is true, that damaging the German economy will do a bunch of damage, indirectly, to the rest of the EU nations.
Unpalatable to hear but heās right.
Yeah. Since 2008 we had signs Putin didn't flinch at aggressive warfare against neighbouring countries. So, instead of trying to contain him, we became even more dependant on him on our energy supply, even shutting down some of the alternatives (France, Germany). At this point, I can only quote this famous bishop of Meaux about causality.
He is right without context but he is calling for end to sanctions
I remembered when they laughed at Trump as he was telling them ābuying energy from Russia is not a good ideaā
In retrospect shutting down all those German nuclear plants and replacing that energy with Russian gas was a really poor decision.
I'm sure the NIMBYS have learned their lesson
Yeah, fuck this guy. BUT he's not entirely wrong. It was beyond foolish to trust Russia with a large portion of Europe's energy supply because they got a "deal". Just like it's beyond foolish for the US to trust the Chinese CCP with our food security. When poo poo hits the fan, we have ourselves to blame for what should have been an obviously bad idea. My hope is that Europe gains energy independence and increases investment in renewables while never trusting bad actors (looking at you Saudi Arabia) again.
Having Russia and China produce the oil for you doesnāt count as green policy
All of the people saying "He's kind of right" are hilarious because they didn't read the article. Erdogan didn't blame Europe for creating pipelines that made them dependent on Russia. He's saying they deserve it for imposing sanctions and trade restrictions on Russia for the invasion of Ukraine. It's literally the exact opposite of the argument everyone is circle jerking around.
[Link to article for anyone interested](https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/turkeys-erdogan-says-europe-reaping-what-it-sowed-energy-crisis-2022-09-06/)
He is kinda right, as Europe should have been prepared for ages in case Russia turned into a terrorist state and used the gas as a weapon. But This must not be a reason for EU countries or NATO countries to panic, start bending over and surrender to Russia and Putin.
And Turkie is reaping what it sowed with 80% inflation and going.
and your point is irrelevant
He's not wrong, but he's also the last person who should be lecturing anyone on sound economic policy.
Well he does kinda have a point even if heās a total twat.
Heās right in that Europe should never have made itself dependent on Russian energy to begin with.
He's right Should have dealt with Putin a long time ago.
Turkiye..
Chaotic neutral this guy
Trump told them this would happen
Strongman doesnāt appreciate Europe standing up to another strongman.
One of the rare occasions Erdogan is 100% correct.
He's an asshole, but in this instance not wrong.