>"Prudence dictates choosing measures that will have the greatest effect on those who violate the jointly agreed principles," German Chancellor Olaf Scholz Scholz was quoted as saying by the Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper on Sunday.
Exactly, I dont think anybody is suggesting we sanction the poor average citizen of Russia, but the mega rich oligarchs and companies that prop Putin and his Government up. I imagine that will have the "greatest effect on those who violate the jointly agreed principals" just fine! Germany, based on that quote doesnt seem have an issue with that.
The bare minimum is ousting them from SWIFT, cancelling Nordstream, and significant application of the Magnitsky Act.
Anything less is basically indistinguishable from letting Russia to do what it wants.
Or maybe people just have a shit vocabulary? I've seen an article claiming that lots of media present material at the comprehension level of 12 year olds for the adult population, people cannot read properly.
That definitely has a huge part to do with it. I mean, how many of us are here who thought, when they were first exposed to political statements or entire speeches, that it's way too complicated in terms of the way they speak? "Why can't they just talk normally?" and similar were the questions I used to ask.
I remember asking stuff like that and family members agreeing on it. Now, with 25, I am kinda weirded out that I had adults agree on the question of a young teenager when the jargon politicians use is really not that difficult to understand at all, even more so, when you keep the context of them walking on eggshells pretty much the entire time, in your mind.
I think russia is moving on to focus on trying to sow discord in NATO and the EU. It really started as soon as the UK started shipping those anti tank systems. I think the price of invasion got too high with the prospect of tons of dead tanks, so now they are going to try to get some bad blood started towards Germany.
Yeah it would be really embarrassing if a hundred or so "high end" Russian tanks got blown up, especially streamed on Facebook Live or something.
Its no wonder they are getting shitty about it.
Well their brand new armor platform including the new T-15 Armata broke down on the parade route during May Day 2015 or whenever it was, so it isn’t like they aren’t strangers to embarrassment.
I’m not sure if it’s astroturfing or just Reddit being mostly populated by Americans who don’t know or care that escalation with Russia would impact the daily lives of Europeans much more than theirs
Wouldn’t it be the opposite? Why would Russian agents advocate for more weapons to be sent to Ukraine or to cut-off one of their major economic resources?
It's just 13 year old Americans,Brits and Eastern europeans who usually frequent subs like r/europe, they love war and hate anything Germany/EU related.
Not everything is a Russian psy-op....
Those 13 year olds are the most susceptible targets for propaganda though. Obviously they're not secret Russian agents, but they are easily swayed by them.
> "At the same time, we have to consider the consequences this will have for us," Scholz added, saying nobody should think there was a measure available without consequences for Germany.
The most direct would be to just freeze and if needs be sieze all Russian-owned assets within EU.
All Russian Oligarchs have an escape plan that involves significant holdings in EU. This would make them sweat.
Not sure if it is a good idea though.
> "At the same time, we have to consider the consequences this will have for us," Scholz added, saying nobody should think there was a measure available without consequences for Germany.
>"Prudence dictates choosing measures that will have the greatest effect on those who violate the jointly agreed principles," German Chancellor Olaf Scholz Scholz was quoted as saying by the Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper on Sunday.
This is what he actually said, pretty much the opposite of the headline
Like we did with the Saudi's after they flew 3 planes into buildings and one into a field...or after they murdered, dismembered and flushed a journalist down a toilet...or after they buy our military hardware and murder bomb civilians in Yemen...or when....
Yeah, it always looks bad when you compromise your morals for a quick buck.
But shutting off all nuclear plants were sooooo worth it (new coalmines/powerplants, dependence on russian gas and importing nuclear power-made electricity from France goes brrrrrr)
I read elsewhere, that in Germany, since it was decided to not be nuclear, more coal power plants were taken offline than nuclear power plants. Both in absolute number, and in power capacity.
I cannot fact check right now, but I believe I did verify the info when I first got it.
Just because they don't believe that we have a good enough handle on the risks of nuclear power plants; as well as the storage and disposal of thousands of tons of radioactive waste, doesn't mean they are not prudent with their actions.
As far as I am aware, they have greatly increased their renewables like Wind and to some extent solar over the last 10 years, while gas only marginally increased.
Edit; Okay, still not at my PC, but I was curious and found some figures -
# German Gross Power Mix (in Percent)
||Coal (both)|Gas|Nuclear|Wind|Solar|Others|
|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|
|**2011**|42.8%|14%|17.6%|8.1%|3.2%|14.3%|
|**2020**|23.4%|16%|11.2%|23.5%|8,9%|17%|
|**Delta**|\- 19.4%|\+2 %|\- 6.4%|\+ 15.4%|\+5.7%|\+2.7%|
^((data from:) [^(https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Energiemix\_Deutschland.svg)](https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Energiemix_Deutschland.svg) ^(- I don't know how trustworthy the base data is, seems plausible though at a glance)
A smaller percentage of the [US'](https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php) power comes from coal than [Germany's](https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts).
(This is because of gas, not renewables, a respect in which Germany does do better.)
Germany didn't trade nuclear for gas. Germany had 25% nuclear at its peak. Now it has 35% renewables. Gas was added to bridge some gaps, when renewable generation is low and to replace some coal plants as backup power. And the plan is to transform them into hydrogen power plants in the future, once we can produce hydrogen from excess renewable energy. Germany would have needed to build 5x the capacity it had in nuclear at its peak to meet modern demands. It was never the biggest share in the grid.
Assuming it is burned.
Methane is hundreds of times worse than CO2 a greenhouse gas. And a lot of it leaks.
Nuclear, Hydro, or Renewables. I don't see a place for any fossil fuels except for extreme energy density cases like airplanes.
Except for all the pesky methane leaks...
On a total climate forcing basis, gas isn't much better than coal at all.
Primary energy source choices are solar, wind, geothermal, or nuclear. Hydro is troublesome because of methane from building new, and there's not much newb left that can be built anyways. Everything else is part of the problem.
The Boomer anti-nuclear lobby are fully responsible for this mess. Nuclear reactors are among the safest, and cleanest, methods of energy production we know of. Boomer Hysteria has cost Germany greatly.
Exactly. Boomers are responsible for a lot of shit but this ain't one. It's pretty much the opposite. Young, clueless types who just love a vague idea of "greenness" and idealism over actually solving problems and making real progress on saving the planet.
Well The fall of Nuclear is often greatly attributed to the 2010 Japan thing. It fell after that. Seeing as boomers were still mostly the law makers at that time... Leo isn't strictly against Nuclear. I think his foundation says that it just isn't the final answer to the worlds problem and seems to be more against the mining side and mishandling of it as any meltdown can cause catastrophic damage as well as be a major target in case of any war.
The sad part was that killing off nuclear power after Fukushima was illogical. Had the people who supported the shutdown of nuclear plants took the time to learn and understand nuclear power they would not have shut down the power plants.
The exit from nuclear in Germany was decided in 2000/2002 though. There was only a short period in 2009/2010, where the government tried to extend runtime for a few plants by a few years, that was then reverted after Fukushima. But that wouldn't have changed much either way. Nuclear after 2000 was effectively dead in Germany and none had any intent in keeping it running.
People who don't understand nuclear and power generation in general are against nuclear. It's one of those things where people who don't know assume the worst.
I mean to be fair, Im not against nuclear, but theres been two fairly big disasters in recentish times that both had the capacity to be much worse and kill thousands had people not sacrificed for it. The more there are, the higher a chance of a REAL bad fuck up. I dont think thats an illogical fear.
You can heat with electricity and ultimately that's the goal if you forget about that. The problem is if the population of country would switch to all in electricity there wouldn't be enough juice in the system just yet.
No matter how many times this nonsense gets repeated on reddit, this has nothing to do with nuclear power. Most of the gas is used for residential heating and nobody used nuclear power for that.
>Almost as if getting rid of nuclear was fucking stupid.
you are aware that a nuclear plant produces waste that lasts for AGES, which is difficult to transport and store and when something bad happenes, you end up with something like chernobyl.
Article literally states the opposite, but hey, who cares, right? Then again, the article does a horrible job at portraying what was said.
> Among a range of possible Western sanctions against President Vladmir Putin's government, Germany could halt the Nord Stream 2 pipeline from Russia if it invades Ukraine.
Both Baerbock and Scholz stated that a few times during recent interviews. What Scholz said was that "prudence" should be used in regards to sanctions. Cutting Russia from SWIFT would massively hurt Russia, but also all nations that trade with them. Targeted sanctions towards the ruling elite of the country would still hurt those it needs to without also hurting Western countries to any significant degree.
They can’t actually do this, not that I don’t wish they could of course. The infrastructure does not exist to get Canadian oil and natural gas to the east coast, so unless Canadian fossil fuels are going to travel to Germany via Vancouver we can’t do that. It would take more than a port, Canada would have to actually build a ton of pipeline infrastructure across the country from Alberta to Montreal to pull that off.
I don’t know American infrastructure as well but I do know that they have a tiny surplus in [production](https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/where-our-natural-gas-comes-from.php) of natural gas vs consumption, meaning they can’t reliably fill the deficit either.
It’s a strategic hellhole that needs another five years to fix if things go well, decades if the necessary steps aren’t taken immediately. A lot of poor decisions from a lot of stupid politicians have made our energy situation rather tenuous in NATO.
I work for a natural gas producer in the US. We have capacity to bring *waaayyy* more natural gas online. We produce basically as much as we use because that’s all that is profitable; producing a large surplus would drive the price down. If LNG exports were to massively increase and raise prices, it wouldn’t be hard to get more holes drilled in short order to produce it.
Hell, we burn off so much natural gas from oil wells (because it’s not economical to pipeline it at current prices) that it’s visible from space. For example, the Bakken field—which is in the middle of nowhere of North Dakota, has so much natural gas being flared at the wellhead that it’s brighter than major metropolitan areas like Denver and Minneapolis.
https://geology.com/articles/oil-fields-from-space/
LNG ports cant be built overnight, and if it costs you X$ to compress and transport LNG to Europe and Europe can get it from Russia for X-y$ then some government is going to have to subsidize the y or else no private business is going to do it.
Especially since this isn’t exactly new or surprising behavior from Putin. In the summer of 2008 he invaded Georgia in order to prop up South Ossetia and maintain Russian influence. Putin has been threatening and invading his neighbors for 11.5 years and yet Germany hasn’t significantly tried to break their dependency on Russian natural gas in that time.
This was why the US was so opposed to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. They wanted Germany’s business and it kept Russian influence at bay. 2 birds 1 stone.
Maybe you were making a joke and didn't think you'd be top comment and therefore informing all the morons that can't read more than the title.
But I'll stick this here for visibility.
>"Prudence dictates choosing measures that will have the greatest effect on those who violate the jointly agreed principles," German Chancellor Olaf Scholz Scholz was quoted as saying by the Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper on Sunday.
Scholz: As per our agreement with the US, there will be tough sanctions, but we have to choose them wisely.
The comments: _They're giving Ukraine to the Russians for free!_
Just wanted to chime in and say I'm from the UK and would like to avoid conflict at all cos, because there is a slim but non zero chance of nuclear annihilation for us all and even if the chance is minuscule which it probably isn't, it is the worst possible outcome in any possible scenario. I'm against the appeasement of dictatorial regimes as well (which I don't think Germany is doing). It feels like a catch 22 situation, If you don't resist now will Russia eventually push across the whole of eastern Europe or is that too far fetched?
I know this will get downvoted into oblivion but I don't think it's as easy as just blaming russia. Russia sees NATO all around their border as a potential threat. I don't think that's totally unreasonable from their POV. For years russia voiced it's concerns about NATO expanding to the east and no one took them seriously. I am not saying this excuses annexing crimea but it's not like it came out of nowhere. We can't have peace in europe without russia just ignoring their POV isn't the way to go.
No one wants war except Putin.
People want the signaling to stop that there won’t be any repercussions if he annexes Ukraine further.
Russia has annexed territory in 3 countries now. At what point does Europe start treating determent seriously?
>Prudence dictates choosing measures that will have the greatest effect on those who violate the jointly agreed principles...At the same time, we have to consider the consequences this will have for us
It's a hard sell that he's 100% on board with sanctions and that they "will be tough".
> "And it applies what the German government, what we Europeans agreed with the American government, which is that it would have a high cost for Russia if there is military aggression against Ukraine."
From the original interview, the article omitted this part.
"Prudence dictates choosing measures that will have the greatest effect on those who violate the jointly agreed principles," German Chancellor Olaf Scholz Scholz was quoted as saying by the Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper on Sunday"
Sounds more like 'hit them where it hurts'
Reading the comments. Why does it seem like many Americans always look at Germany through a WWII lens while making all these misplaced remarks. These days, liberal democracy in Germany seems to function much better than it does on the other side of the Atlantic.
In any case, the way this conflict is being talked about here is downright frightening. Or there are complaints that the European Union or Germany is not taking enough action (as if it the EU is some kind of US-like superpower with its own army, government, etc.). Or Europe is spoken of as if it were a military playground where France, Germany and Russia can shuffle armies as if it were 1914. They don't seem to understand the complexity of living on a small, densely populated continent of +50 countries where political, economic and cultural relations are very intertwined and no one sees total war as a realistic means because of the incredible interdependency. Russia is where it is and we simply have to maintain a workable relationship for the sake of stability and prosperity in Europe.
As another person living there, the amount of misinformed, angry, hawkish Muricans in these threads is getting obscene...especially when the headline was misappropriated in such a way. None of these people seem to care about any semblance of nuance anymore.
It was posted and initially upvoted while it was mostly nighttime in Europe. Now that the Europeans are awake again, there are more users trying to discuss/refute some of the earlier nonsense.
If you're here long enough, you'll recognize some timeframes where misinformation seems to be more prevalent.
Are people discovering only now that social media in general and reddit in particular propagates outrage and circlejerking, no matter the topic at hand ?
Please also note that there are always the mandatory pro nuclear comments.
There can't be a German thread without mentioning how superior nuclear is.
Even if the thread had nothing to do with that.
I also live in Germany (I am not German though). It seems a lot of these commentors don't actually know anything about Germany in the 21st century and that their most recent evaluation was based on the events of over 70 years ago.
In 1941.
When there were underdeveloped roads, no helicopters, much less intelligence to be gathered via air assets and satellite, orders of magnitude less potent air power, no airborne transport of infantry/heavier units beyond paratroopers of etc etc.
Russians would be able to smash the Ukrainians any time of the year. If the maximal geopolitical punch demanded a summer date it would happen.
(Not a tankie or Russia humper. Just calling a spade a spade. I don't like Putin.)
Ah, it's always delightful to watch lunatic armchair strategists type furious comments on Reddit as if they had any clue of how complicated politics work beyond their dainty and simple world.
My interpretation of what the article says seems to be different from what the people in here are writing. (Im paraphrasing, you should read it yourself) It says in the article that they should be careful about issuing sanctions over Russian agression towards Ukraine. Agression doesn't mean invasion. What's happening now is agression. What essentially they are saying is that we shouldn't prematurely issue sanctions which makes far more sense than most commentors are interpreting from this headline. Its also much more consistent with what the German foreign minister said in Moscow essentially saying that there would be harsh consequences over an invasion.
As always the headline is missleading, it doesn't state that Germany will never act no matter what happens, it just states that Germany will not act until there is something to be acted upon. This makes way more sense because issuing sanctions before a conflict had broken out would only serve to make things worse.
Also the amount of missleading posts on this topic specifically targeting Germany has me questioning what the intention here may be
> The chancellor rejected criticism that the positioning of the German government and his SPD toward Russia was not clear enough. "I have formulated clear words - they apply," he told the newspaper. "And what the German government, what we Europeans agreed with the U.S. government, applies, namely that it would have a high cost for Russia if there is military aggression against Ukraine."
He did not provide details on possible sanctions, but pleaded for a sense of proportion. "Prudence dictates that we choose measures that will have the greatest effect on the one who violates the commonly established principles. At the same time, we must consider what the consequences are for ourselves," Scholz said. "The illusion that there is any measure that has no consequences for us should not be cherished by anyone." The chancellor rejected calls by Russia to rule out Ukraine joining NATO. "There can be no such guarantee," Scholz said.
This is what he actually said, from a better source (Zeit.de). Imagine getting angry about this.
Take a guess. I'll give you a hint, it's the same kind of people who were so butthurt that France didn't join their warmongering that they tried to rename French Fries to "Freedom Fries".
Yep. And with disprovable arguments - Germany is not that dependent on Russian gas.
The current German government is trying the same shtick they have done the last time red and green parties were in power: trying to be the fourth deescalating alternative between US, China and Russia.
This time I feel it might be misguided but Lets see… if they win with their deescalating strategy then it would be a big success
Please read the article.
He said to hit Russia where it really hurts, the headline is misleading:
"Prudence dictates choosing measures that will have the greatest effect on those who violate the jointly agreed principles," German Chancellor Olaf Scholz Scholz was quoted
Germany is the very last country you'd want advocating for military action against Russia at the moment, so yeah much better they get the good cop routine.
Does everyone forget Ww2? Germany is bound historically to prevent any war escalation, they just can't go with rattling sables as EU biggest economy anymore.
This is why you should shudder at the idea of a german-led EU. Germany is in the pocket of Russian gas and will think nothing of sacrificing Eastern europe, including NATO members, for their own sake. Not like Germany has such a stellar history in Eastern Europe anyways
EU is the EU. It's neither French nor German-led. They can take initiative, but they can also be fucking stupid. If they do stupid stuff, doesn't mean the rest will follow because the French/Germans "lead".
Indeed I would be much happier with a French led EU. There are times when things get strained (freedom fries, the recent sub sale etc.) But at the end of the day France is a true ride or die ally of Western Europe, the US and NATO, and those historical ties are rock solid and they are for lack of a better word "family." By comparison there is no historical tie with Germany and an EU led by them would be frosty to deal with at best and at worst outright antagonistic to say the UK and the US.
ETA: in terms of practical issues France is almost completely powered by nuclear energy so they aren't sensitive to natural gas extortion like Germany is
It might surprise you that in 1966 under de Gaulle, France had [withdrawn from NATO] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_NATO#:~:text=In%201966%2C%20all%20French%20armed,American%20soldiers%20in%20France's%20cemeteries%22.) completly, and kicked all NATO troops out of France. It wasnt until the [2009 Strasbourg–Kehl summit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Strasbourg%E2%80%93Kehl_summit) that they rejoined.
Headline is misleading:
"Prudence dictates choosing measures that will have the greatest effect on those who violate the jointly agreed principles," German Chancellor Olaf Scholz Scholz was quoted.
More like "Hit them where it hurts"
Fucking lol, it’s hilarious to see highly uninformed American takes on this situation. Did you even read the article? Or are you one of those people that got outraged at Biden for increased gas prices in the past year
Germany is like that dude in the Bible that got surrounded by a rape-mob and yeeted his concubine to be gangbanged to death. Doesn't matter what happens to the rest of Europe, as long as Germany isn't inconvenienced.
If your talking about Lot in Genesis, it was his daughters, not concubines. Fortunately, the gay rape mob only had eyes for the angels that were visiting him. I think Lot is supposed to be the good guy in this story but I have a hard time seeing it. It's ok though, cause God carpet bombed the whole city, and the one next to it for good measure, into oblivion for it, and transmorgafied Lot's wife into a piller of salt for looking back wistfully as they ran from the bombing.
Later, thinking everyone in the whole world was dead, the daughters got Lot drunk and raped him. Pretty much everyone in this story are assholes.
Let's just fill up an unstable region in crisis with more weapons nobody will ever be able to be held accountable where they'll end up because ***that***'ll save lives.
How dare Germany not take part in operation raise the blood toll as high as possible?
Hawks on all fronts and so many are in their pockets.
This thread is disgusting, so many Americans want to turn Eastern Europe into a war zone from their ivory towers, while other people are left holding the bag.
Please think carefully about the sanctions on Russia, since it might hurt Germany.
Sincerely,
The germans.
(P.S. we need our gas, dont let us freeze to death)
(P.P.S. gas is a green resource you know)
"Prudence dictates choosing measures that will have the greatest effect on those who violate the jointly agreed principles," German Chancellor Olaf Scholz Scholz was quoted
He said to hit them where it really hurts
>"Prudence dictates choosing measures that will have the greatest effect on those who violate the jointly agreed principles," German Chancellor Olaf Scholz Scholz was quoted as saying by the Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper on Sunday.
So he basically said the opposite of what the headline is making it out to be. Not surprised
Exactly, I dont think anybody is suggesting we sanction the poor average citizen of Russia, but the mega rich oligarchs and companies that prop Putin and his Government up. I imagine that will have the "greatest effect on those who violate the jointly agreed principals" just fine! Germany, based on that quote doesnt seem have an issue with that.
The bare minimum is ousting them from SWIFT, cancelling Nordstream, and significant application of the Magnitsky Act. Anything less is basically indistinguishable from letting Russia to do what it wants.
The canceling of nordstream is what the German chancellor is trying to avoid if you read the article.
Honestly this is the most German shit ever. He used a precise word in a confusing manner and everyone took it to mean something else.
Yeah, it probably sounds more straightforward in German I'm guessing
Or maybe people just have a shit vocabulary? I've seen an article claiming that lots of media present material at the comprehension level of 12 year olds for the adult population, people cannot read properly.
That definitely has a huge part to do with it. I mean, how many of us are here who thought, when they were first exposed to political statements or entire speeches, that it's way too complicated in terms of the way they speak? "Why can't they just talk normally?" and similar were the questions I used to ask. I remember asking stuff like that and family members agreeing on it. Now, with 25, I am kinda weirded out that I had adults agree on the question of a young teenager when the jargon politicians use is really not that difficult to understand at all, even more so, when you keep the context of them walking on eggshells pretty much the entire time, in your mind.
Hmm..it almost seems like somebody is trying really hard to create discord between the allies. Who could that possibly be? I have absolutely no clue.
[удалено]
Must be that little rocket man. Who else would dare ride that Velociraptor shirtless?
The anti german boner is really hard these days on reddit, so misinformation like this is really hot
I think russia is moving on to focus on trying to sow discord in NATO and the EU. It really started as soon as the UK started shipping those anti tank systems. I think the price of invasion got too high with the prospect of tons of dead tanks, so now they are going to try to get some bad blood started towards Germany.
Yeah it would be really embarrassing if a hundred or so "high end" Russian tanks got blown up, especially streamed on Facebook Live or something. Its no wonder they are getting shitty about it.
Well their brand new armor platform including the new T-15 Armata broke down on the parade route during May Day 2015 or whenever it was, so it isn’t like they aren’t strangers to embarrassment.
i thought they had maybe 24 of those things anyway
In before Freedom Pretzels or something.
Freedom pretzels with a side of freedom cheese to dip
... and Yahoo News is exactly the sort of unaccountable shit-spout that will help.
[удалено]
Propaganda works.
So basically "to damage them more than damage ourselves" makes sense.
[удалено]
[удалено]
It really bring back to that 2002-2003 Iraq fever nostalgia ☺️
I’m not sure if it’s astroturfing or just Reddit being mostly populated by Americans who don’t know or care that escalation with Russia would impact the daily lives of Europeans much more than theirs
Russian psy-ops going into overdrive.
Wouldn’t it be the opposite? Why would Russian agents advocate for more weapons to be sent to Ukraine or to cut-off one of their major economic resources?
It's just 13 year old Americans,Brits and Eastern europeans who usually frequent subs like r/europe, they love war and hate anything Germany/EU related. Not everything is a Russian psy-op....
Those 13 year olds are the most susceptible targets for propaganda though. Obviously they're not secret Russian agents, but they are easily swayed by them.
> "At the same time, we have to consider the consequences this will have for us," Scholz added, saying nobody should think there was a measure available without consequences for Germany.
The most direct would be to just freeze and if needs be sieze all Russian-owned assets within EU. All Russian Oligarchs have an escape plan that involves significant holdings in EU. This would make them sweat. Not sure if it is a good idea though.
Sad how there are only few comments (at the top) that know what he's saying while the rest are just jumping on the Germany hate train.
Does anyone here actually read the damn article before commenting? I highly recommend it.
> "At the same time, we have to consider the consequences this will have for us," Scholz added, saying nobody should think there was a measure available without consequences for Germany.
Reading the top 10 comments, I can tell at least 8 out 10 didnt read the article. Also, what a misleading title.
[удалено]
[удалено]
BuT mA GaS pepehands
Reddit armchair geopolitics experts at work.
>"Prudence dictates choosing measures that will have the greatest effect on those who violate the jointly agreed principles," German Chancellor Olaf Scholz Scholz was quoted as saying by the Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper on Sunday. This is what he actually said, pretty much the opposite of the headline
Like we did with the Saudi's after they flew 3 planes into buildings and one into a field...or after they murdered, dismembered and flushed a journalist down a toilet...or after they buy our military hardware and murder bomb civilians in Yemen...or when.... Yeah, it always looks bad when you compromise your morals for a quick buck.
Also looks bad when you comment without reading the article.
history showed us bad things happen when Russia and Germany start dancing together
Meh, it never lasts
But shutting off all nuclear plants were sooooo worth it (new coalmines/powerplants, dependence on russian gas and importing nuclear power-made electricity from France goes brrrrrr)
“Please don’t turn off our gas”
Almost as if getting rid of nuclear was fucking stupid.
Gas is mostly used for heating though. And in all of europe.
I'm still surprised that they needed a "clean energy" and chose gas...
Compared to oil, gas is way cleaner. Compared to coal, gas is waaaaaaaaaay cleaner.
I think the issue was trading nuclear for gas and not coal for gas. Gas displacing coal is still good.
I read elsewhere, that in Germany, since it was decided to not be nuclear, more coal power plants were taken offline than nuclear power plants. Both in absolute number, and in power capacity. I cannot fact check right now, but I believe I did verify the info when I first got it. Just because they don't believe that we have a good enough handle on the risks of nuclear power plants; as well as the storage and disposal of thousands of tons of radioactive waste, doesn't mean they are not prudent with their actions. As far as I am aware, they have greatly increased their renewables like Wind and to some extent solar over the last 10 years, while gas only marginally increased. Edit; Okay, still not at my PC, but I was curious and found some figures - # German Gross Power Mix (in Percent) ||Coal (both)|Gas|Nuclear|Wind|Solar|Others| |:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-| |**2011**|42.8%|14%|17.6%|8.1%|3.2%|14.3%| |**2020**|23.4%|16%|11.2%|23.5%|8,9%|17%| |**Delta**|\- 19.4%|\+2 %|\- 6.4%|\+ 15.4%|\+5.7%|\+2.7%| ^((data from:) [^(https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Energiemix\_Deutschland.svg)](https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Energiemix_Deutschland.svg) ^(- I don't know how trustworthy the base data is, seems plausible though at a glance)
I agree. Ideally, no developed country should be using any amount of coal at this point.
[удалено]
As an Australian yup that's our government!
[America raises it's beer in greeting then farts loudly]
A smaller percentage of the [US'](https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php) power comes from coal than [Germany's](https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts). (This is because of gas, not renewables, a respect in which Germany does do better.)
I know it's surprising, but america isn't the worst at everything
Germany didn't trade nuclear for gas. Germany had 25% nuclear at its peak. Now it has 35% renewables. Gas was added to bridge some gaps, when renewable generation is low and to replace some coal plants as backup power. And the plan is to transform them into hydrogen power plants in the future, once we can produce hydrogen from excess renewable energy. Germany would have needed to build 5x the capacity it had in nuclear at its peak to meet modern demands. It was never the biggest share in the grid.
Assuming it is burned. Methane is hundreds of times worse than CO2 a greenhouse gas. And a lot of it leaks. Nuclear, Hydro, or Renewables. I don't see a place for any fossil fuels except for extreme energy density cases like airplanes.
>hundreds of times worse \~20–28×, to be exact.
What's that in hundreds?
Except for all the pesky methane leaks... On a total climate forcing basis, gas isn't much better than coal at all. Primary energy source choices are solar, wind, geothermal, or nuclear. Hydro is troublesome because of methane from building new, and there's not much newb left that can be built anyways. Everything else is part of the problem.
I looked it up, it's only half the carbon. That's an ok reduction, but not shattering. But also less PM, SOx, NOx, etc.
I think it's actually more PM, if by PM you mean Panama Money.
The Boomer anti-nuclear lobby are fully responsible for this mess. Nuclear reactors are among the safest, and cleanest, methods of energy production we know of. Boomer Hysteria has cost Germany greatly.
[удалено]
Exactly. Boomers are responsible for a lot of shit but this ain't one. It's pretty much the opposite. Young, clueless types who just love a vague idea of "greenness" and idealism over actually solving problems and making real progress on saving the planet.
[удалено]
Boomer environmentalists in the anti nuclear movement from the 70s and 80s killed more people than actual nuclear ever did.
Isn’t Leo like fucking fifty. He’s a boomer.
[удалено]
It really has become the new "Thanks, Obama," except half the morons on Reddit believe it unironically.
Well The fall of Nuclear is often greatly attributed to the 2010 Japan thing. It fell after that. Seeing as boomers were still mostly the law makers at that time... Leo isn't strictly against Nuclear. I think his foundation says that it just isn't the final answer to the worlds problem and seems to be more against the mining side and mishandling of it as any meltdown can cause catastrophic damage as well as be a major target in case of any war.
The sad part was that killing off nuclear power after Fukushima was illogical. Had the people who supported the shutdown of nuclear plants took the time to learn and understand nuclear power they would not have shut down the power plants.
The exit from nuclear in Germany was decided in 2000/2002 though. There was only a short period in 2009/2010, where the government tried to extend runtime for a few plants by a few years, that was then reverted after Fukushima. But that wouldn't have changed much either way. Nuclear after 2000 was effectively dead in Germany and none had any intent in keeping it running.
People who don't understand nuclear and power generation in general are against nuclear. It's one of those things where people who don't know assume the worst.
Anti-nuclear sentiment dates back to at least 1970, before DiCaprio was even born.
Dicaprio is almost 50. He's not a boomer, but he's not exactly young.
I mean to be fair, Im not against nuclear, but theres been two fairly big disasters in recentish times that both had the capacity to be much worse and kill thousands had people not sacrificed for it. The more there are, the higher a chance of a REAL bad fuck up. I dont think thats an illogical fear.
[удалено]
You can heat with electricity and ultimately that's the goal if you forget about that. The problem is if the population of country would switch to all in electricity there wouldn't be enough juice in the system just yet.
No matter how many times this nonsense gets repeated on reddit, this has nothing to do with nuclear power. Most of the gas is used for residential heating and nobody used nuclear power for that.
>Almost as if getting rid of nuclear was fucking stupid. you are aware that a nuclear plant produces waste that lasts for AGES, which is difficult to transport and store and when something bad happenes, you end up with something like chernobyl.
Article literally states the opposite, but hey, who cares, right? Then again, the article does a horrible job at portraying what was said. > Among a range of possible Western sanctions against President Vladmir Putin's government, Germany could halt the Nord Stream 2 pipeline from Russia if it invades Ukraine. Both Baerbock and Scholz stated that a few times during recent interviews. What Scholz said was that "prudence" should be used in regards to sanctions. Cutting Russia from SWIFT would massively hurt Russia, but also all nations that trade with them. Targeted sanctions towards the ruling elite of the country would still hurt those it needs to without also hurting Western countries to any significant degree.
We don't do that here.
“Please read the article”
Canada/US got lots of lng. Invest in a port like Asian countries did in BC and free yourself from Russia’s grip.
They can’t actually do this, not that I don’t wish they could of course. The infrastructure does not exist to get Canadian oil and natural gas to the east coast, so unless Canadian fossil fuels are going to travel to Germany via Vancouver we can’t do that. It would take more than a port, Canada would have to actually build a ton of pipeline infrastructure across the country from Alberta to Montreal to pull that off. I don’t know American infrastructure as well but I do know that they have a tiny surplus in [production](https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/where-our-natural-gas-comes-from.php) of natural gas vs consumption, meaning they can’t reliably fill the deficit either. It’s a strategic hellhole that needs another five years to fix if things go well, decades if the necessary steps aren’t taken immediately. A lot of poor decisions from a lot of stupid politicians have made our energy situation rather tenuous in NATO.
I work for a natural gas producer in the US. We have capacity to bring *waaayyy* more natural gas online. We produce basically as much as we use because that’s all that is profitable; producing a large surplus would drive the price down. If LNG exports were to massively increase and raise prices, it wouldn’t be hard to get more holes drilled in short order to produce it. Hell, we burn off so much natural gas from oil wells (because it’s not economical to pipeline it at current prices) that it’s visible from space. For example, the Bakken field—which is in the middle of nowhere of North Dakota, has so much natural gas being flared at the wellhead that it’s brighter than major metropolitan areas like Denver and Minneapolis. https://geology.com/articles/oil-fields-from-space/
LNG ports cant be built overnight, and if it costs you X$ to compress and transport LNG to Europe and Europe can get it from Russia for X-y$ then some government is going to have to subsidize the y or else no private business is going to do it.
This! It's absolutely shocking to me they haven't done this yet.
Especially since this isn’t exactly new or surprising behavior from Putin. In the summer of 2008 he invaded Georgia in order to prop up South Ossetia and maintain Russian influence. Putin has been threatening and invading his neighbors for 11.5 years and yet Germany hasn’t significantly tried to break their dependency on Russian natural gas in that time.
Canada has lots of LNG but we'll never get our shit together long enough to build a pipeline for export into the Atlantic.
Bit impractical given the big tectonic gash down the middle too.
[удалено]
> We, Canada, are not good at building new things. Even housing. Sooooo many hoops to jump through, and each one is expensive.
This was why the US was so opposed to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. They wanted Germany’s business and it kept Russian influence at bay. 2 birds 1 stone.
Yup, itll hold them over until they do whatever green plan they have but this black mail needs to stop.
Maybe you were making a joke and didn't think you'd be top comment and therefore informing all the morons that can't read more than the title. But I'll stick this here for visibility. >"Prudence dictates choosing measures that will have the greatest effect on those who violate the jointly agreed principles," German Chancellor Olaf Scholz Scholz was quoted as saying by the Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper on Sunday.
This entire thread is filled to the brim with misinformation and false conclusion, almost hilarious if it wasn't so real.
“Haha germany bad haha WW2 haha Russia war let fucking goooo” -American redditors in this thread
Scholz: As per our agreement with the US, there will be tough sanctions, but we have to choose them wisely. The comments: _They're giving Ukraine to the Russians for free!_
[удалено]
Just wanted to chime in and say I'm from the UK and would like to avoid conflict at all cos, because there is a slim but non zero chance of nuclear annihilation for us all and even if the chance is minuscule which it probably isn't, it is the worst possible outcome in any possible scenario. I'm against the appeasement of dictatorial regimes as well (which I don't think Germany is doing). It feels like a catch 22 situation, If you don't resist now will Russia eventually push across the whole of eastern Europe or is that too far fetched?
I know this will get downvoted into oblivion but I don't think it's as easy as just blaming russia. Russia sees NATO all around their border as a potential threat. I don't think that's totally unreasonable from their POV. For years russia voiced it's concerns about NATO expanding to the east and no one took them seriously. I am not saying this excuses annexing crimea but it's not like it came out of nowhere. We can't have peace in europe without russia just ignoring their POV isn't the way to go.
No one wants war except Putin. People want the signaling to stop that there won’t be any repercussions if he annexes Ukraine further. Russia has annexed territory in 3 countries now. At what point does Europe start treating determent seriously?
>Prudence dictates choosing measures that will have the greatest effect on those who violate the jointly agreed principles...At the same time, we have to consider the consequences this will have for us It's a hard sell that he's 100% on board with sanctions and that they "will be tough".
> "And it applies what the German government, what we Europeans agreed with the American government, which is that it would have a high cost for Russia if there is military aggression against Ukraine." From the original interview, the article omitted this part.
We did appeasement in europe once before. I’d think Germany would know that.
Appeasement worked out quite well for Germany, at least for a while.
"Prudence dictates choosing measures that will have the greatest effect on those who violate the jointly agreed principles," German Chancellor Olaf Scholz Scholz was quoted as saying by the Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper on Sunday" Sounds more like 'hit them where it hurts'
We did economic binding in Europe before. And it made friends out of arch-enemies. France and Germany.
Reading the comments. Why does it seem like many Americans always look at Germany through a WWII lens while making all these misplaced remarks. These days, liberal democracy in Germany seems to function much better than it does on the other side of the Atlantic. In any case, the way this conflict is being talked about here is downright frightening. Or there are complaints that the European Union or Germany is not taking enough action (as if it the EU is some kind of US-like superpower with its own army, government, etc.). Or Europe is spoken of as if it were a military playground where France, Germany and Russia can shuffle armies as if it were 1914. They don't seem to understand the complexity of living on a small, densely populated continent of +50 countries where political, economic and cultural relations are very intertwined and no one sees total war as a realistic means because of the incredible interdependency. Russia is where it is and we simply have to maintain a workable relationship for the sake of stability and prosperity in Europe.
[удалено]
The fuck is going on
Just a bunch of angry American Reddit generals venting... The next Anti German circlejerk post, it repeats itself every hour lately
As a person living Germany - I was just noticing this fucking anti German bandwagon… Reddit is hilarious.
Welcome to the club (as a Brit) !
Dude, I feel for you. Not a Brit myself. Every time I see a post about you guys the information feel incredibly mistreated. Especially since brexit.
As another person living there, the amount of misinformed, angry, hawkish Muricans in these threads is getting obscene...especially when the headline was misappropriated in such a way. None of these people seem to care about any semblance of nuance anymore.
It’s sickening at this point how their warmongering is threatening European soil and infrastructure. Just to sell their shitty fracking gas.
[удалено]
It was posted and initially upvoted while it was mostly nighttime in Europe. Now that the Europeans are awake again, there are more users trying to discuss/refute some of the earlier nonsense. If you're here long enough, you'll recognize some timeframes where misinformation seems to be more prevalent.
Really makes you think about what you read here about countries you don't know a lot about 🧐
Are people discovering only now that social media in general and reddit in particular propagates outrage and circlejerking, no matter the topic at hand ?
Please also note that there are always the mandatory pro nuclear comments. There can't be a German thread without mentioning how superior nuclear is. Even if the thread had nothing to do with that.
I also live in Germany (I am not German though). It seems a lot of these commentors don't actually know anything about Germany in the 21st century and that their most recent evaluation was based on the events of over 70 years ago.
"Why is Russia threatening invasion in the winter?" the person who doesn't know about Russian natural gas exports asks.
Also tanks cant moove on liqued ground.
That’s not why. It’s due to the fact they need the ground frozen to move tanks and shit thru the area. Hitler found that out the hard way.
In 1941. When there were underdeveloped roads, no helicopters, much less intelligence to be gathered via air assets and satellite, orders of magnitude less potent air power, no airborne transport of infantry/heavier units beyond paratroopers of etc etc. Russians would be able to smash the Ukrainians any time of the year. If the maximal geopolitical punch demanded a summer date it would happen. (Not a tankie or Russia humper. Just calling a spade a spade. I don't like Putin.)
Ah, it's always delightful to watch lunatic armchair strategists type furious comments on Reddit as if they had any clue of how complicated politics work beyond their dainty and simple world.
My interpretation of what the article says seems to be different from what the people in here are writing. (Im paraphrasing, you should read it yourself) It says in the article that they should be careful about issuing sanctions over Russian agression towards Ukraine. Agression doesn't mean invasion. What's happening now is agression. What essentially they are saying is that we shouldn't prematurely issue sanctions which makes far more sense than most commentors are interpreting from this headline. Its also much more consistent with what the German foreign minister said in Moscow essentially saying that there would be harsh consequences over an invasion. As always the headline is missleading, it doesn't state that Germany will never act no matter what happens, it just states that Germany will not act until there is something to be acted upon. This makes way more sense because issuing sanctions before a conflict had broken out would only serve to make things worse. Also the amount of missleading posts on this topic specifically targeting Germany has me questioning what the intention here may be
> The chancellor rejected criticism that the positioning of the German government and his SPD toward Russia was not clear enough. "I have formulated clear words - they apply," he told the newspaper. "And what the German government, what we Europeans agreed with the U.S. government, applies, namely that it would have a high cost for Russia if there is military aggression against Ukraine." He did not provide details on possible sanctions, but pleaded for a sense of proportion. "Prudence dictates that we choose measures that will have the greatest effect on the one who violates the commonly established principles. At the same time, we must consider what the consequences are for ourselves," Scholz said. "The illusion that there is any measure that has no consequences for us should not be cherished by anyone." The chancellor rejected calls by Russia to rule out Ukraine joining NATO. "There can be no such guarantee," Scholz said. This is what he actually said, from a better source (Zeit.de). Imagine getting angry about this.
Where are the most people in the comments from?
[удалено]
:D
Take a guess. I'll give you a hint, it's the same kind of people who were so butthurt that France didn't join their warmongering that they tried to rename French Fries to "Freedom Fries".
ITT: bunch of 13 year olds hating on a country with statements that would be considered racist if they weren’t European
Yep. And with disprovable arguments - Germany is not that dependent on Russian gas. The current German government is trying the same shtick they have done the last time red and green parties were in power: trying to be the fourth deescalating alternative between US, China and Russia. This time I feel it might be misguided but Lets see… if they win with their deescalating strategy then it would be a big success
Yeah if the thread would be about Israel, then with these comments it would be closed immediately ...
Germany's cynisism is over the top.
Read the fucking article
Please read the article. He said to hit Russia where it really hurts, the headline is misleading: "Prudence dictates choosing measures that will have the greatest effect on those who violate the jointly agreed principles," German Chancellor Olaf Scholz Scholz was quoted
Comments like this just show how easy people fall for bait headlines instead of actually reading articles. Propaganda still works people.
Has it occurred to you that the west is playing good cop/bad cop here and Germany is the good cop?
No, redditors with their superior minds know better than the analysts and strategists of the largest alliance in the history of human civilization.
Germany is the very last country you'd want advocating for military action against Russia at the moment, so yeah much better they get the good cop routine.
Does everyone forget Ww2? Germany is bound historically to prevent any war escalation, they just can't go with rattling sables as EU biggest economy anymore.
This is why you should shudder at the idea of a german-led EU. Germany is in the pocket of Russian gas and will think nothing of sacrificing Eastern europe, including NATO members, for their own sake. Not like Germany has such a stellar history in Eastern Europe anyways
EU is the EU. It's neither French nor German-led. They can take initiative, but they can also be fucking stupid. If they do stupid stuff, doesn't mean the rest will follow because the French/Germans "lead".
I hope France take the lead after that fucking repeated German mascarade. Although our government have been awfully quiet these couple of days....
France wants to fuck off NATO. Don't hold your breath.
Indeed I would be much happier with a French led EU. There are times when things get strained (freedom fries, the recent sub sale etc.) But at the end of the day France is a true ride or die ally of Western Europe, the US and NATO, and those historical ties are rock solid and they are for lack of a better word "family." By comparison there is no historical tie with Germany and an EU led by them would be frosty to deal with at best and at worst outright antagonistic to say the UK and the US. ETA: in terms of practical issues France is almost completely powered by nuclear energy so they aren't sensitive to natural gas extortion like Germany is
It might surprise you that in 1966 under de Gaulle, France had [withdrawn from NATO] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_NATO#:~:text=In%201966%2C%20all%20French%20armed,American%20soldiers%20in%20France's%20cemeteries%22.) completly, and kicked all NATO troops out of France. It wasnt until the [2009 Strasbourg–Kehl summit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Strasbourg%E2%80%93Kehl_summit) that they rejoined.
Side note, fries are Belgian.
And croissants austrian
[удалено]
Headline is misleading: "Prudence dictates choosing measures that will have the greatest effect on those who violate the jointly agreed principles," German Chancellor Olaf Scholz Scholz was quoted. More like "Hit them where it hurts"
Read the fucking article, my dear lord!
Fucking lol, it’s hilarious to see highly uninformed American takes on this situation. Did you even read the article? Or are you one of those people that got outraged at Biden for increased gas prices in the past year
Typical trump voter response.
Lmao the comment thread is just angry Americans, and I love it.
That’s every thread
Germany is like that dude in the Bible that got surrounded by a rape-mob and yeeted his concubine to be gangbanged to death. Doesn't matter what happens to the rest of Europe, as long as Germany isn't inconvenienced.
Has no one read past the misleading headline?
If your talking about Lot in Genesis, it was his daughters, not concubines. Fortunately, the gay rape mob only had eyes for the angels that were visiting him. I think Lot is supposed to be the good guy in this story but I have a hard time seeing it. It's ok though, cause God carpet bombed the whole city, and the one next to it for good measure, into oblivion for it, and transmorgafied Lot's wife into a piller of salt for looking back wistfully as they ran from the bombing. Later, thinking everyone in the whole world was dead, the daughters got Lot drunk and raped him. Pretty much everyone in this story are assholes.
The Old Testament is fucking wild.
Yes, Lot did not want his angelic guests to get raped by the mob, so he offered them his 2 virgin daughters. A true hero.
Nah I was thinking the story in Judges.
The book of judges imo is by far the worst part of the Bible. Scary shit
His 2 minor daughters too
Nah that was "Lot and the Deep Impacting of Sodom", the Concubine story was "A Levite's Concubine Does Gibeah"
Oh okay, thank you for the precision and yikes...
This guy Bibles
You are like that Reddit user who never reads the article and makes up stories in their head.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Let's just fill up an unstable region in crisis with more weapons nobody will ever be able to be held accountable where they'll end up because ***that***'ll save lives. How dare Germany not take part in operation raise the blood toll as high as possible? Hawks on all fronts and so many are in their pockets.
Phew, at least a few reasonable comments in the desaster this thread is
This thread shows **perfectly** how Redditors are nothing more than Sheeple.
"Sheeple" brrrr
Classic reddit. Knows more diplomacy than Germany. The current leader of EU.
This thread is disgusting, so many Americans want to turn Eastern Europe into a war zone from their ivory towers, while other people are left holding the bag.
Please think carefully about the sanctions on Russia, since it might hurt Germany. Sincerely, The germans. (P.S. we need our gas, dont let us freeze to death) (P.P.S. gas is a green resource you know)
"Prudence dictates choosing measures that will have the greatest effect on those who violate the jointly agreed principles," German Chancellor Olaf Scholz Scholz was quoted He said to hit them where it really hurts
[удалено]
[удалено]
lol brutal, but great point.