The majority of Belgium’s electricity comes from nuclear, wind and solar. They have been greatly expanding wind parks in the north sea, and they’re in the early stages of deploying SMRs. But the reality is that Belgium still needs a lot of natural gas for electricity production and its large chemical industry, and that all of this gas has to be imported.
Long term there is the European hydrogen strategy which aims to convert a lot of the current natural gas storage and transportation grid to hydrogen and use that in places that currently use LNG, but this requires inventing new technologies so is not a quick fix.
Currently, European (and Chinese) strategy on hydrogen is to use it as a reduction agent in steelmaking and other industrial processes (I've heard cement and some non-steel metallurgy, but steelmaking is the main one). Hydrogen is made from gas locally (as it is cheaper) and replace cocking coal. The next step is to produce hydrogen from water.
People think it is a dead end, and we should keep using coke clearly haven't read enough. The advantage of hydrogen are massive: no need to source the coal, the hydrogen can be made in situ. The reduction effect is for now more controllable (in a mix 80% coal, 20% hydrogen), and the inconvenients are reduced each year.
Hydrogen as a chemical feedstock is not a problem, but that’s not what the “using hydrogen in LNG infrastructure” is what people push for. It’s about the “hydrogen economy” were you hear stupid ideas like energy carrier, hydrogen boilers, and fuel cell vehicles.
This is not necessarily true for all situations. Northern Europe is planning to produce a lot of electricity with offshore wind, but laying deep sea high voltage electricity cables isn’t cheap. There’s already a lot of gas pipelines that can be retrofitted for hydrogen transport at a much lower price. At a certain point it becomes viable to just use electrolysis and transport hydrogen using excess wind power instead of transporting the electricity to land and storing it in batteries.
There are also industries like steel production that are just not going to transition to electricity. Hydrogen has a place there too.
> At a certain point it becomes viable to just use electrolysis and transport hydrogen using excess wind power instead of transporting the electricity to land and storing it in batteries.
If you are talking about excess energy, that implies there is non-excess energy that’s being transported across cables. So you are already transporting it to land and connecting it to the grid. Storage from there is trivial compared to a hydrogen transmission and distribution network.
As for repurposing the LNG pipes for hydrogen, that’s a pipe dream to convert a standard asset into a story you can sell.
The real problem are transport and heating. In most countries, those consume significantly more primary energy than the electricity sector and are still mostly fossil fueled. For example, more than half of the primary energy consumed in France is oil and gas. Heat pumps and electric vehicles or trains can now finally change this, but the transition is very slow.
You have to look at useful energy vs. primary energy. An ICE is 10-30% thermally efficient. Then you have all the energy wasted on getting the fuel into the tank.
For ground transport this is already solved by BEVs and rail. For ferries running fixed routes batteries also already solve it.
What we have left is aviation and longer maritime shipping. They will likely need chemical fuels for the foreseeable future, but to get to them we need to start with the easier applications first and develop the technology.
In China there is already small-scale nuclear district heating.
"China's Haiyang nuclear power plant in Shandong province has begun its sixth heating season, covering an area of nearly 13 million square metres - 500,000 square metres more than last year."
In Switzerland both Beznau and Gösgen nuclear power plant produce district heating in addition to power. Beznau makes available 80 MW of heat to industry and homes over a 130 km network serving 11 towns
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profil...
In Slovakia since 1987, Slovak power utility Slovenské Elektrárne (SE) has been producing heat for Trnava, Leopoldov, Hlohovec and the municipality of Jaslovské Bohunice from the Jaslovské Bohunice NPP. This plant produced 429 GWh of heat in 2023. The high ten-kilometre hot water pipe between the Jaslovské Bohunice power plant and the Trnava heating plant began construction in 1983 and was put into operation at the end of 1987. Heat project for Mochovce NPP is also planed.
"The pilot is a 1:1 full-scale replica of the LDR‑50 small nuclear heating reactor. Instead of a reactor core, the pilot uses an electric resistor that simulates the decay heat produced by an actual reactor. "
Google "Messmer Plan". France built 65 reactors in 15 years as a reaction to the 70s oil crisis, and now the majority of electricity in France comes from nuclear without any significant dependency on fossil fuels. The only thing that we're lacking is political will to change things.
Yep. Once people experience true hardship like having to keep their house just above freezing in the winter due to the cost of energy - all of a sudden impossible things become quite possible.
The only potential issue here would be if the west had collectively hollowed out its manufacturing base so much as to make surging capacity and capability a generational thing vs. immediate.
Coasting on past success eventually brings stagnation and pain. Hopefully the pain isn’t too horrible for normal folks this time around.
The French energy sector is more than 50% fossil [1]. If France decarbonizes over the next decades, it will be due to renewables, not nuclear. While the government and population have been extremely pro-nuclear for a long time, the economics just don't work out. The current plan is to barely build enough reactors to replace old ones going off-line over the next decades.
That seems to be mostly because of oil use which is coming from transportation. Electrical generation is dominated by nuclear and renewables. Electrification of transport will help, provided they don't generate the additional electricity needed by burning gas or coal...
That's why I used the word electricity and not energy. It isn't perfect, but still much better than the majority if the world and even Europe. The fact that even the French themselves cannot replicate it anymore speaks volumes about the weakness of the current political system. As a counter example, the Chinese can and do.
In 2024, China produced 8 times more electricity from renewables that from nuclear [1], and the renewable share is growing much more quickly. Nuclear is as dead in China as it is elsewhere in the world.
China has a huge advantage over the majority of Europe: abundance of mostly empty land with a lot of sunlight, it's unrealistic in places like Norther Europe. But I'm not talking about nuclear alone, it was the best answer in the 70s and 80s, nowadays we need a healthy mix of nuclear, solar and wind. But above everything else we need a government willing to make significant changes and make them fast.
Chinese population is concentrated in the East. The Western half of the country is pretty much empty. Lots of sunny semi-desertic/desertic areas, too so they do have a lot of actually empty land well suited for solar (China is more to the South compared to Europe: Beijing is about same latitude as Madrid...) and wind.
And now Flamanville 3 is 7x over budget and 14 years late. Online but not commercially operational.
Their EPR2 fleet are getting an enormously large subsidy at 11 cents kWh CFD for 40 years and interest free loans. Sum freely. With the first reactor online in 2038 of everything goes to plan.
How many trillions in subsidies should we handout to new built nuclear power to ”try for real”?
Or we can just build renewables and storage which is the cheapest energy source in human history.
6-7 years. France built 40 its nuclear reactors in a decade, at 6-7 years per reactor.
Right now China is building reactors at 6-7 years per reactor.
--- start quote ---
Nearly every Chinese nuclear project that has entered service since 2010 has achieved construction in 7 years or less.
Every single conventional commercial-scale reactor project in Chinese history has achieved completion in under a decade
Since the start of 2022, China has completed an additional five domestic reactor builds, with their completion times ranging from just under five years to just over 7 years. This continues the consistent completion record of Chinese projects even despite potential disruptions from the intervening COVID-19 pandemic.
China successfully constructed six nuclear reactors in Pakistan in around 5.5-6 years each
The actual lesson here is that beyond a small reserve, the case for nuclear is non existent (unless proponents are willing to stop pretending it isn’t about nuclear weapons).
The same Chinese who in addition to wind and solar are also building many nuclear energy plants of several differing designs, have nuclear already as 20% (?? or so, IIRC) of their supply capacity and intend by plan to keep it that way?
For whatever reason, the Chinese are all for hybrid nuclear / renewables - and keeping modern more efficient coal plants in the picture until they no longer needed.
The "trending flat" is by design, they want coal and nuclear as still available fallback, nuclear also has national security benefits for deterrence, the expansion plans for nuclear (not major amounts more, just steady low growth) are still on their table, just throttled back somewhat for now and ready to ramp up as they choose.
So, Wind on it's own ~ 2x Nuclear, and Solar on it's own about 1.3 x Nuclear.
Clearly I was thinking of some other pivot on energy charting in China taht had it at 20% - perhaps current growth rates .. apologies.
That aside, in the greater picture of energy consumption, Wind, solar, and nuclear in China are all close enough to be ballpark ( a little more seperated just in the context of electricity generation )
> How does nuclear, an energy source known for needing to run at a very high capacity factor (i.e at max capacity) help with energy spikes?
It's one of the fastest load-following power sources we have. I think only gas power stations are faster. And no, they don't run at full capacity at all times.
You can't ramp up or ramp down any of the renewable sources as quickly. Or you have to insanely overbuild them.
Batteries help to a point, and there are downsides and problems to batteries, too. You want to be as diverse in your power sources and power source backups as possible.
> Well you better go tell the Chinese that they should slow down on wind and solar, clearly they are misinformed about how to run their grid.
Non-sequitur.
China is building out all power sources at tremendous pace. They build both renewables and nuclear. They literally approve 10 new reactors a year on top of all the renewables they also build.
And while they canceled inland
plans after Fukushima, they may still reverse the decision. China is nothing if not pragmatic.
> China is building out all power sources at tremendous pace. They build both renewables and nuclear. They literally approve 10 new reactors a year on top of all the renewables they also build.
Not a non-sequitor. They are building out wind solar and hydro at orders of magnitude more than nuclear.
“Look China is building so much nuclear, we should too.” Is disingenuous and self-serving by the nuclear industry since they don’t acknowledge that their nuclear build out is a rounding error (and a decade behind behind schedule) compared to renewables. If we want to point to China and say we should do what they do, the obvious take away is that renewables are the way to go.
You: "Well you better go tell the Chinese that they should slow down on wind and solar, clearly they are misinformed about how to run their grid."
What do you call this? "An argument"? I was polite calling it a non sequitur.
> Is disingenuous and self-serving by the nuclear industry since they don’t acknowledge that their nuclear build out is a rounding error (and a decade behind behind schedule) compared to renewables.
China: Approves 10 new nuclear reactors a year. Builds up an extremely diversified power source for their country.
You: You're disingenuous. They are not building that much nuclear.
> their nuclear build out is a rounding error (and a decade behind behind schedule) compared to renewables.
Please don't use words and term whose meaning you don't understand. By source of power nuclear is 4.47% of total electricity production. Solar 8%, wind 10%, hydro 13.4%.
China is extremely lucky with their rivers and landscape. Hydro is huge in China.
> If we want to point to China and say we should do what they do
They do literally what I said: China is building out all power sources at tremendous pace. It's diversifying its energy production.
You, on the other hand:
- Claim that I should go and tell China to stop building solar and wind. Something I never said or implied
- That nuclear build up in China is a rounding error compared to renewables. It's not
- That "doing what China is doing" means to somehow only focus on renewables. Whereas China focuses on all sources, and nuclear is literally one of the country's priorities, building and approving more reactors a year than the rest of the world combined (going from 9 constructions in 2000 to 36 in 2025, 42 new ones proposed, and over 140 on the roadmap, 6-7 years construction time per reactor). And they are busy building nuclear reactors around the world (so, gaining more and more expertise and technologies).
At this point I've said all I needed to say to you.
> Right now China is building reactors at 6-7 years per reactor.
Thats China. In Europe, this building speed isnt going to happen anytime soon. The knowledge to build nuclear at that scale isn't in the coutry/continent anymore. You'd have to reteach an entire generation of engineers.
Besides that, part of the point of switching away from oil and gas is at least some independence. Europe isnt known for its nuclear fuel supply so now you're reliant on another country again.
Yes, most solar is produced in China but its about as low maintence as it gets and there is still enough knowledge to produce in Europe.
You are right to point out the astonishing developments in Chinese nuclear reactors technology most people are totally oblivious of. It has been standardized, is seemingly safe and far more efficient due to Chinese technological advancements; however you may be overlooking that the ability, the capacity to do that, to do what France did by installing 56 nuclear reactors due to the last oil shock, takes an industrial capacity that does not seem to really exist anymore in Europe to the same degree. I won’t even get into why that is, because it would simply turn into a book, but suffice to say, it’s a euphemistic, polite “challenge”, so to say.
But people also forget that it still takes nuclear fuel to do any of that, which France/Europe has now also largely lost access to, due to the Niger situation along with cutting itself off from Russia/BRICS. That will at some point become an issue for France/Europe, which the “remilitarizing” EU may even make one of its first contrived America-style military adventures to “protect democracy” or some other manipulative, emotive, contrived lie by the lying Epstein, Mandelson, Brunel Class.
Fun fact: Germany blew up its nuclear energy capacity with voted approval by the current EU Commission President von der Leyen, while she was in the German government ruling coalition … she has described that her own action as a “strategic mistake”. That is who is basically the dictator of Europe, someone who makes self-described “strategic mistakes” of the highest order, multi-generational, rippling, echoing, de facto permanently consequential mistakes.
We do, it's not our fault that the electricity market in the EU is such that the spot price is based on the most expensive kWh produced in the zone we supply to. It sucks that we have to pay high energy prices because Germany fucked up their energy policies, or because Poland is still mostly coal-based.
Nuclear reactors are running, Forsmark, Oskarshamn, and Ringhals are still there and producing 25% of our electricity right at this moment.
So we do, and we are getting ratfucked by the common electricity market in the EU that pushes our prices much higher than what it costs to produce.
Poland plans to enter nuclear power. Three AP1000 reactors at the Choczewo site in the voivodeship of Pomerania. The European Commission granted formal approval for state aid in December 2025, including a capital injection of approximately PLN 60 billion (approximately $17 billion) and a 40‑year contract for difference.
Discussing whose fault it is does not change the fact that a statement such as "we do manage quite well to use green energy for heating during winter in Sweden" is quite questionable. The electricity prices ARE high and they would be significantly lower if we had not decommissioned half of our nuclear reactors
> The electricity prices ARE high and they would be significantly lower if we had not decommissioned half of our nuclear reactors
Where is the source for this statement?
The prices are not set by our producing costs, do you know how electricity is priced in the EU electricity market?
We do manage quite well, if you understood the pricing mechanism you'd know what I meant instead of knee-jerking into the umbrella "but more nuclear!".
Green energy is super useful for heating in winter. At this point heat pumps are better than gas in almost every way unless the temperature is well below freezing. So it's just a matter of electricity which Italy and Belgium can get from the current mix of green energy (wind and even solar) and other forms (nuclear, coal, etc...)
Then buy it from the US at a higher price? The same US that helps Israel in occupation and genocide in Palestine and in attacking sovereign countries all around?
"It's not that you refrain from doing something because it will offend Russia. If Russia is doing something that we don't want it to do, we should offend them."[0]
And that's coming from a man who said a few minutes earlier:
"There is one of the factor here that we seem to be forgetting, and we did, though it was not a legally binding assurance, we gave categorical assurances to Gorbachev, back when the Soviet Union existed, that if a United Germany was able to stay in NATO, NATO would not be moved eastward. ... It is not a legally binding, but it was, you might say, a geopolitical deal."[1]
But later on it was a repeating speaking point that it's not Russia's business if NATO decides to expand.
And should I mention the US "midwifing" the coup in Ukraine in 2014? [2]
2. Before 2014 almost no one in Ukraine wanted to join NATO. After 2014 almost everyone wanted to join NATO. After 2022 Sweden and Finland ran to NATO.
> it's not Russia's business if NATO decides to expand.
Countries bordering Russia literally run to NATO the moment they have a choice. I wonder why. It couldn't be Russia who's to blame, could it?
> And should I mention the US "midwifing" the coup in Ukraine in 2014?
Just like Russia is midwifing crises and elections actoss Europe and countries like Georgia and Azerbaijan? Aurely this calls for immediate invasion and hundreds of thousands of deaths.
>Before 2014 almost no one in Ukraine wanted to join NATO. After 2014 almost everyone wanted to join NATO.
Pro-Western Ukrainian president submitted request to join NATO in 2008 and the NATO response was positive.
And your statement is false, before 2014 there was significant minority that favored joining NATO and after 2014 the percentage grew but was very far from "almost everyone"
>It couldn't be Russia who's to blame, could it?
That's typical response. Now please tell me why the security concerns of these countries has to be respected and Russia's security concerns don't?
>Just like Russia is midwifing crises and elections actoss Europe and countries like Georgia and Azerbaijan
Russia has never supported any coups in Europe or in Georgia and Azerbaijan.
> Pro-Western Ukrainian president submitted request to join NATO in 2008 and the NATO response was positive.
I wonder where it came from [0][1].
> That's typical response. Now please tell me why the security concerns of these countries has to be respected and Russia's security concerns don't?
World superpower (according to Russians themselves) has security concerns about checks notes Ukraine, Baltics, Georgia, Poland, Finland. Seems about right, judging by how war in Ukraine goes.
> Russia has never supported any coups in Europe or in Georgia and Azerbaijan.
Yushchenko had time machine and he decided to ask to join NATO after seeing the future in which Georgia attacked South Ossetia[0] emboldened by getting the same promise of future NATO membership?
Or Yushchenko got upset that Russia didn't let Ukraine steal Russian gas intended for European countries? Here is the quotation from the very top of the article you linked to:
"The conflict began when Russia claimed that Ukraine was not paying for gas and was diverting gas bound from Russia to the European Union from pipelines that crossed the country. Ukrainian officials at first denied the last accusation,but later Naftogaz admitted it used some gas intended for other European countries for domestic needs. "
>Seems about right, judging by how war in Ukraine goes.
So what's your point?
>My fucking eyes, lmao.
When you deal with your eye problems, maybe you could provide an example supporting your point.
He didn't. Talks about NATO's future were limited to East Germany alone and written down into the articles 4 and 5 of the so-called "4+2 treaty" from 1990, which settled the post-reunification status of East Germany. In the treaty, it was agreed that foreign NATO forces would not enter East Germany before Soviet forces had withdrawn (by 1994).
It's absurd to even suggest anything beyond that, because post-reunification Germany was to border the Warsaw Pact. Even theoretically, there was nowhere for NATO to "expand." Gorbachev's team did not foresee the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact the following year.
Your oft-cited link doesn't support the "100% NATO said they wouldn't expand" and it's a verbal statement that wasn't even ratified anywhere.
Unlike, you know, multiple treaties Russia has with, say, Ukraine.
But if you're holding verbal agreements in such high esteem, Putin himself said he doesn't care if Ukraine joins NATO.
> Pro-Western Ukrainian president submitted request to join NATO in 2008 and the NATO response was positive.
You mean "just some the NATO members were positive and within the country the request was so unpopular that it led to public protests".
> before 2014 there was significant minority that favored joining
My statement was definitely an exaggeration. However support for joining NATO:
- before 2014 was hovering around 20% on a good day, and the request to join NATO was met with strong opposition and public protests.
- after 2014 support spiked to 50 and then to 70, and then slowly subsided. Gee I wonder why
- After 2022 it's been around 80%. I wonder why. Truly it's all the fault of the expansionist NATO.
> Now please tell me why the security concerns of these countries has to be respected and Russia's security concerns don't
Russia's "security concerns": "if you subhumans don't do exactly what we say, we invade you and subjugate you, you are not a real country anyway".
Now tell me, who exactly is responsible for public opinion in Ukraine turning from "nope, we don't want NATO", to "yes, we overwhelmingly want to be in NATO"? I mean, you seem to absolve Russia of any and all responsibility.
> Russia has never supported any coups in Europe or in Georgia and Azerbaijan.
Ahahahhahahahahahahahha. This is the literal quote of what I said: "Russia is midwifing crises and elections actoss Europe and countries like Georgia and Azerbaijan". If you claim that Russia is not complicit in this, I don't know what to tell you.
But sure, in your eyes Russia does nothing, never gets involved in everything, and that 4-year war it's waging against anither country is totally and absolutely justified because Russia.
I gave you a link to the video where former American ambassador to the USSR is saying "though it was not a legally binding assurance, we gave categorical assurances to Gorbachev, back when the Soviet Union existed, that if a United Germany was able to stay in NATO, NATO would not be moved eastward".
You argue like you haven't seen it.
>just some the NATO members were positive
That's not true, the alliance itself gave the assurances.[0]
>the request was so unpopular
The polls consistently showed that, but it hadn't stopped Yuschenko from submitting the request.
>Russia's "security concerns": "if you subhumans don't do exactly what we say, we invade you and subjugate you, you are not a real country anyway".
And this dismissive attitude towards legitimate security concerns of Russia led to the current situation.
>This is the literal quote of what I said
You forgot to quote "Just like". "the US "midwifing" the coup in Ukraine in 2014" isn't "just like" what you wrote. Besides, you haven't even offered any sources for your statements. Is it because you blame Russia for anything you don't like?
> I gave you a link to the video where former American ambassador to the USSR is saying "though it was not a legally binding assurance, we gave categorical assurances to Gorbachev, back when the Soviet Union existed, that if a United Germany was able to stay in NATO, NATO would not be moved eastward".
Eduard Shevardnadze, the USSR's minister of foreign affairs at the time, clarified that the context was the potential stationing of foreign NATO troops (US, UK, etc) in East Germany after reunification. There was nowhere further "east" to move at the time, since East Germany bordered the Warsaw Pact. German reunification was agreed upon with the understanding that foreign troops would not be moved directly to the border with the Warsaw Pact, because the Pact had not yet had time to establish military infrastructure after retreating from East Germany. That was the agreement and parties adhered to it.
Shevardnadze also said that in 1990, it was unimaginable to the Soviet leadership that the Warsaw Pact and the USSR itself would dissolve. Therefore, there was no reason to discuss potential NATO membership of countries and territories that were under Soviet control at the time. And according to him, this was indeed not discussed at all during his tenure (1985-1991); not internally, and not with foreign partners either.
The putinesque sob story that NATO promised never to accept any new members is an anachronistic perversion of these events.
> The polls consistently showed that, but it hadn't stopped Yuschenko from submitting the request.
Oh no, so you are hellbent on clearly ignoring the opposition to the request, the protests, and keep framing this as "Ukraine wanted to join NATO". Even though Ukrainian parliament was literally blocked by the issue and it was not allowed to continue further? Or that multiple NATO members opposed Ukrainian membership (you have to get approval from all NATO members)? Or that the whole thing was derailed by Russian involvement in Georgia?
> And this dismissive attitude towards legitimate security concerns of Russia led to the current situation.
I've yet to see you assign any responsibility to Russia for its actions.
> You forgot to quote "Just like".
1. you have to actually provide a source that what happened in Ukraine was a coup. Hint: Ukrainians are quite happy to remove anyone in power through popular movements
2. I clearly literally described what Russia was doing. You keep trying to move the discussion to your own very narrow (and quite invalid) definition of a coup.
3. I've yet to see you assign any reponisbility to Russia for Russia's actions. Russia is blameless, spotless, and purely justified in its 4-year invasion of Ukraine.
If there's no legally binding assurance, why are you holding on to it as if it was? While completely ignoring actual legally binding assurances like "Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation" that literally establishes things like "inviolability of existing borders, and respect for territorial integrity" and "prevents Ukraine and Russia from invading one another's country respectively, and declaring war"?
I see that you still absolve Russia of literally any and all responsibility for its actions.
As for the treaty you could read other articles in that treaty[0] while you at it:
Article 6
Each High Contracting Party shall refrain from participating in, or supporting, any actions directed against the other High Contracting Party, and shall not conclude any treaties with third countries against the other Party. Neither Party shall allow its territory to be used to the detriment of the security of the other Party.
Article 7
If a situation arises which, in the opinion of one of the High Contracting Parties, poses a threat to peace, violates the peace or affects the interests of its national security, sovereignty or territorial integrity, it may propose to the other High Contracting Party that consultations on the subject be
held without delay. The States shall exchange relevant information and, if necessary, carry out coordinated or joint measures with a view to overcoming the situation
Article 11
The High Contracting Parties shall, in their territory, take the necessary measures, including the adoption of appropriate legislative acts, to prevent and suppress any activities that constitute an incitement to violence or violence against individuals or groups of citizens, based on national, racial, ethnic or religious intolerance.
Article 12
The High Contracting Parties shall protect the ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious diversity of ethnic minorities in their territory and shall create conditions that encourage such diversity.
Each High Contracting Party shall guarantee the right of persons belonging to ethnic minorities, individually or together with other persons belonging to ethnic minorities, freely to express, preserve and develop their ethnic, cultural, linguistic or religious diversity and promote and develop their culture without being subjected to any attempts to assimilate them against their
will.
1. Ukraine had a very strong ipposition to joining NATO prior to 2014. And according to Putin himself, other countries (Ukraine, Sweden, Finland etc.) joining NATO is those countries' own decision and he's okay with it. If he was against it, has he called any consultation etc.? No he didnt't. He waited until all the way of the end if Yanukovich's term to bribe him... to not sign association agreement with the EU (not even NATO).
As it turns out, Ukraine should've joined NATO waaaay before 2014.
2. Any "action to affect security" calls for a consultation. Russia instead invaded and grabbed Crimea, and invaded and made Donbass a permanent gray zone. And then started a full-scale invasion
3. Protection of culture etc. is literally enshrined in Ukranian Constitution. Even now you can speak Russian freely in Ukraine despite the war.
To the point that National Russian Drama Theater didn't change its name or repertoire until Russia's invasion.
See how you keep absolving Russia of literally any responsibility.
>Protection of culture etc. is literally enshrined in Ukranian Constitution
The first thing Ukrainian parliament did after the coup was repelling the law protecting Russian language[0] I recommend reading the whole article, it all went downhill from there.
>Even now you can speak Russian freely in Ukraine despite the war.
Now children are beating children in kindergarten for saying "hello" in Russian. [1]
> The first thing Ukrainian parliament did after the coup was repelling the law protecting Russian language
You mean bullshit law that Yanukovich passed for populist reasons. A law that had no meaning or force. Read Ukranian Constitution. Article 10.
It went downhill from there? Really? Russia itself had literally nothing to do with that?
> Now children are beating children in kindergarten for saying "hello" in Russian.
Yes, there are bound to be issues now. I wonder, what could be the reason? It couldn't be the war Russia is waging to eradicate Ukraine, could it?
---
In 5 answers to me alone you haven't once acknowledged Russia's actions. You haven't once said that Russia bears any responsibility. You keep grasping at thinner and thinner straws to basically keep saying (through your silence) thatRusdia is pristine, blameless, and totally justified in any and all its actions.
Oh. But then in you worldview Russia "evacuates orphans from war zone" [0] (and not "removes children in war Russia itself started") and "Russia doesn't target civilians" (when Russia explicitly targets civilian buildings) [1]
So before I break HN rules by saying what exactly I think about people like you...
> "It's not that you refrain from doing something because it will offend Russia. If Russia is doing something that we don't want it to do, we should offend them."[0]
Has Russia ever refrained from offending the West when it suited their interests?
> And should I mention the US "midwifing" the coup in Ukraine in 2014? [2]
It takes some really stupid arrogance to say shit like this when Ukraine literally had Russian stooge as a president at the time, installed via fossil fuel extortion. If Russia wanted truly neutral Ukraine, they should've backed the fuck off in the first place.
>Has Russia ever refrained from offending the West
Of course. Like abstaining in a UN SC vote, allowing NATO bomb Libya.
>Russian stooge as a president at the time, installed via fossil fuel extortion
Nope, Yanukovich was elected by Ukrainian people.[0] Previous pro-Western president received only 6% of votes in the first round.
>If Russia wanted truly neutral Ukraine, they should've backed the fuck off in the first place.
Enlighten me, how backing off when the US supports pro-Western coup in the Ukraine would've resulted in "truly neutral Ukraine"? And please mind your language
> Of course. Like abstaining in a UN SC vote, allowing NATO bomb Libya.
The generosity!
> Nope, Yanukovich was elected by Ukrainian people.[0]
Tell me more of those exciting stories. From your link:
>> After all ballots were counted, the Ukrainian Central Election Commission declared that Yanukovych won the election with 48.95% of the vote compared with 45.47% for Tymoshenko.
> Previous pro-Western president received only 6% of votes in the first round.
After the guy was poisoned, disfigured beyond repair all while fighting smear campaigns calling him beekeeper.
You should've linked [0] when you talk about Yushchenko, comrade.
> Enlighten me, how backing off when the US supports pro-Western coup in the Ukraine would've resulted in "truly neutral Ukraine"? And please mind your language
Quid pro quo, it's a really tough principle for Russian to understand, because they're only used to extortion.
> And please mind your language
Your attempt at patronizing is as pathetic as Russian military takeover of Ukraine.
I don’t understand where the arrogance comes in here. I see underhandedness and realpolitik, but those don’t arrogance make.
(I’ll also note that it seems very weird to use a pinky promise that the US made with a country that no longer exists as some kind of “gotcha.” You presumably don’t factor the Austro-Hungarian empire’s commitments into your geopolitics.)
The arrogance of ignoring repeated Russian requests to stop NATO expansion and Ukraine integration into NATO, and of not stopping (well documented) US political meddling in Ukraine. This went on for many years- Mearsheimer was able to predict the war ten years in advance. The US and Europe ignored all this- the US maybe because it really stood to gain from a war, Europe because it thought it was beneath itself to seriously engage with Russia.
NATO is a defensive pact, it can't expand. Countries can and want to join it willingly.
> and of not stopping (well documented) US political meddling in Ukraine
Assuming that's true, and it's a big if, let's turn this around: Russia has been messing with Ukraine politics since the collapse of the USSR. Why shouldn't US be allowed to?
> Europe because it thought it was beneath itself to seriously engage with Russia.
Beneath itself like, checks notes, making its industry completely dependent on Russian energy exports and pretty much not doing anything when Russia attacked Georgia, occupied Crimea and attacked east of Ukraine. If Europe had a backbone and considered Russia *beneath* them, it would completely kill any trade with it.
It's up to the current members to decide who can join and who can't. That should also include considerations of opportunity.
> Russia has been messing with Ukraine politics since the collapse of the USSR. Why shouldn't US be allowed to?
The US is allowed to do whatever its military and economic power allows it to. Then actions have consequences. The consequences had been stated clearly.
> pretty much not doing anything when Russia attacked Georgia, occupied Crimea
Here, check the history of sanctions of the EU to Russia. It goes back to 2014.
> It's up to the current members to decide who can join and who can't. That should also include considerations of opportunity.
And as history showed, they did the right choice. Or war in Ukraine would be war in Ukraine + Baltics + Romania.
> The US is allowed to do whatever its military and economic power allows it to. Then actions have consequences. The consequences had been stated clearly.
So US is messing with Ukraine, which Russia doesn't like, therefore Russia attacks Ukraine, because it can't compete using its whip with the Wests cookie. Logic checks out.
> Here, check the history of sanctions of the EU to Russia. It goes back to 2014.
So pretty much ignored Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008. The only sanctions Russia understands is boots on the ground and rockets (now drones) attacking their military and refineries.
> Here, check the history of sanctions of the EU to Russia. It goes back to 2014.m
Oh no. The totally ordinary year of 2014 when nothing happened, and sanctions on Russia suddenly appeared for no reason at all.
Prior to that there was hardly a single thing the West was doing to, or against, Russia. Moreover, there were multiple "restarts", "reboots", "second chances" etc. that Russia repeatedly shat on.
NATO is a military alliance, the only ones who get a say about who is in it and who isn't are its current members. That said, of course choices have consequences, and some choices are more advisable/ appropriate than others.
I’m pretty confident that a large part of NATO (and all other military alliances) is the accession of new members. Candidate members have to want to accede, which goes back to my question: why are we talking about what the US and Russia want, when Ukraine’s wants are just as if not more important?
Look, the point is not what one wants. Everyone is free to make its own choices. The point is that choices have consequences, and when the consequences are very clear in advance and you still make that choice, you also take responsibility for the consequences. This attitude that "this is my will and I will pursue it, and I don't care about how others feel about it (because anyway I'm stronger)" is called arrogance.
The point appears to be changing. And again: it’s not clear why we’re talking about the US or NATO as primary drivers when Ukraine is a sovereign state that can litigate its affairs as it pleases. If you want to claim that the US meddles in Ukraine’s affairs that seems defensible, but no less defensible than the claim that Russia also meddles in their affairs (including kinetically, at the moment).
Edit: I’ll also note that arrogance usually means something closer to “discounting the consequences of your actions,” which is not evidenced here.
> This attitude that "this is my will and I will pursue it, and I don't care about how others feel about it (because anyway I'm stronger)" is called arrogance.
Mearsheimer was predicting Putin wouldn't do a full scale invasion of Ukraine right up until shortly after he already did , so strange choice of Cassandra to pick.
It’s never dawned on you that the lying, cheating, manipulative, murderous Epstein class government just may have lied to you? They may lie to you every day, telling you e.g., that there’s just absolutely no money for proper care of its own citizens’ fundamental needs, but then immediately approve 10X that amount to squander and personally profit from murder and military spending … but you think those people are just the most honest people that never ever lie about what happened/history???
You seem not to know what a rant is. Two questions that make you uncomfortable because they challenge your dogmatic beliefs is not it though. You are very disappointing.
The problem is, russia wants to see Europe subjugated, conquered, its lapdog ripe for governance from russia to have everything stolen by few oligarchs around that clown puttin'.
This is russian modus operandi everywhere, they don't know any better, they never knew. This comes from somebody who grew up behind iron curtain, a country effectively enslaved by russians, forcibly having massive russian military bases and atomic weapons, to be a nuclear battlefield that 3rd world war was supposed to be.
You can't have a fair dealings with them, not when they sense any kind of weakness. Former german leaders showed conjsistently such weakness and desperate appeasing, dragged rest of EU with them and look where it led to. Also, russia as a state is waging 20+ years of asymetric warfare against whole west, but especially focusing subverting EU structures.
I wish we could have normal relationships with them, we really tried in Europe, but they are fucked up as a nation, without any hope in this century for any sort of radical change.
I agree US is right now just a bully and arrogant aggressive a-hole, sowing chaos all around the world and poorest suffer the most. But there are not that many options - fucked up US with no clear leadership change (once trump's support goes to single digits I will restore some of my faith in that nation, not sooner), russia is simply the bad guy globally, consistently, and gulf states are not so reliable as we see. What remains - Venezuela, Nigeria maybe? No good choices, maybe due to resource curse but then again ie Norway managed such free treasure just fine.
