As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[EU]ropean democracies thread

1911131415

Posts

  • TarantioTarantio Registered User regular
    According to this: https://www.statista.com/statistics/712841/median-construction-time-for-reactors-since-1981/#:~:text=Median construction time required for,from 1981 to 2019 respectively.

    The median time before a nuclear plant starts to produce has never been more than about 10 years.

    That's still a long time, and recent years are on the slower side.

    If we're talking about a carbon-free grid, a baseline of consistent production like nuclear or hydro is nice, because it can replace both an equivalent amount of renewable production and enough storage to output that much power over a still night.

    Storage will need to be an order of magnitude less expensive before pure wind and solar can compete with nuclear on cost for baseload production.

    https://spectrum.ieee.org/what-energy-storage-would-have-to-cost-for-a-renewable-grid

    StarZapperGiantGeek2020
  • HonkHonk Honk is this poster. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2021
    Feel like the green push against nuclear throughout the latter half of the century means we’re on coal instead. And just as much wind/water as we’d have been otherwise.

    I understand safety concerns to some point, I don’t understand safety concerns to the point where Germany decided jfc if we get hit by a 10 meter tsunami from *notes* the Baltic we’d be fucked.

    Edit: Just feels like a huge own-goal.

    Honk on
    PSN: Honkalot
    ChanusLord_AsmodeusKayne Red RobeStarZappermrondeauSmrtnikAntinumericGiantGeek2020scherbchenLanlaornAimZibblsnrtthatassemblyguyKruiteAegisshrykeBlackDragon480
  • [Expletive deleted][Expletive deleted] The mediocre doctor NorwayRegistered User regular
    Tarantio wrote: »
    According to this: https://www.statista.com/statistics/712841/median-construction-time-for-reactors-since-1981/#:~:text=Median construction time required for,from 1981 to 2019 respectively.

    The median time before a nuclear plant starts to produce has never been more than about 10 years.

    That's still a long time, and recent years are on the slower side.

    If we're talking about a carbon-free grid, a baseline of consistent production like nuclear or hydro is nice, because it can replace both an equivalent amount of renewable production and enough storage to output that much power over a still night.

    Storage will need to be an order of magnitude less expensive before pure wind and solar can compete with nuclear on cost for baseload production.

    https://spectrum.ieee.org/what-energy-storage-would-have-to-cost-for-a-renewable-grid

    Risk is that extra production won't cause coal plants to be shut off, but be used to increase consumption.

    Sic transit gloria mundi.
  • TarantioTarantio Registered User regular
    Yes, unless non-carbon power production/storage gets way cheaper than it is, making more power production won't stop carbon power plants.

    That will require some method of imposing the external costs of environmental damage on carbon production, or simply banning the practice.

    Cornucopiist
  • CornucopiistCornucopiist Registered User regular
    Do keep in mind that all Green parties are about reducing consumption and industrial production.
    They haven't blocked nuclear intending that the continued growth of our neoliberal consumption economies had to be powered by (Chinese) coal.
    They blocked nuclear as an aside to promoting a different societal model where a human can, in fact, live without having to prove their economic worth and therefore global energy use could be reduced.
    Lets be clear: if nuclear power plants would have been implemented by neoliberal economies, there would still be a push for more growth and you would likely still see coal used.
    But the argument against the Green parties is not just false, its also hypocritical.
    We're overlooking four decades of denial, sabotage, grudging end to the denial, grudging acknowledgment that maybe something needs to be done, not even completely there yet on the 'and we have to do it'. At this point in time, and only this point in time, is the option of *having* nuclear energy sold as related to global warming, and only in the context of continued growth.

    honovereFANTOMAS
  • Lord_AsmodeusLord_Asmodeus goeticSobriquet: Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered User regular
    So what the fuck is the point of building and developing other Green Energy sources either, then. It seems like you're arguing that Green proponents have been pushing against Nuclear because it's too good and too reliable and if we had a solid base of clean energy it would only encourage other destructive behavior that would be worse. And if that's the thesis I'm sorry but I think maybe they should have changed tactics maybe 20 years ago when they realized the people responsible for those decisions don't fucking care.

    Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
    FencingsaxWyreinStarZapperSmrtnikLanlaornMillTryCatchershryke
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Are Coal plants not being shut off like they are in the US?

  • CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    edited October 2021
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Are Coal plants not being shut off like they are in the US?

    Even in places where they are being phased out for renewable they tend to get kept around to be pressed back into service whenever there isn't enough wind or whatever on a given day.

    Casual on
  • Lord_AsmodeusLord_Asmodeus goeticSobriquet: Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered User regular
    So they get kept around to be used as a backup of stable baseload of power when other, less consistent renewable energy sources might not be able to provide enough

    Something that you could use Nuclear for.

    Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
    CasualWyreinKayne Red Robeshryke
  • CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    So they get kept around to be used as a backup of stable baseload of power when other, less consistent renewable energy sources might not be able to provide enough

    Something that you could use Nuclear for.

    For places like Europe that have little to no natural disasters it's a good investment to have a balanced mix of nuclear and renewable working together. On the other hand Japan demonstrated why nuclear power is a bad fit for places that can get hit hard by natural disasters. That unfortunately applies to a lot of the world.

  • Lord_AsmodeusLord_Asmodeus goeticSobriquet: Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered User regular
    I'm not sure I agree with that assessment. Japan has over 40 Nuclear Reactors, and like 30% of their power came from Nuclear energy before Fukushima, Fukushima was the first real nuclear disaster they had and it was pretty much entirely for contextual reasons that don't apply to pretty much any plant, and definitely wouldn't apply to any plant designed after Fukushima was in like, the 70's. On top of that the actual death toll and environmental and health impact of Fukushima itself was incredibly low. Fukushima was mismanaged by the company in most of the ways it could be related to the disaster, and it was still far less damaging or deadly than most of the alternatives that do what Nuclear does in terms of power generation. Even in natural disaster prone areas, with the correctly engineered plants Nuclear is still a safe, reliable choice for energy production. More people are likely to get cancer every year from any single coal power plant running normally than at Fukushima when it went wrong.

    Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
    SmrtnikKayne Red RobeLanlaornpainfulPleasanceshrykeForar
  • SanderJKSanderJK Crocodylus Pontifex Sinterklasicus Madrid, 3000 ADRegistered User regular
    There probably is a future where we completely electrify, and then the excess power is turned into hydrogen, or used to pump water to higher ground. (Or some other midterm battery)

    The question remains if nuclear is not a money pit. Germany has a plan that is basically 100-150% daily coverage with just wind and solar, and they claim it's already cheaper than building nuclear, not accounting for solar/wind still becoming cheaper. Then again the political reality in Germany makes nuclear nearly impossible. (It's a core tenet of the Green Party, and the CDU has taken over the stance under Merkel)

    Practically the downside is not so large. In the grand scheme of things losing a few billion over 40 years because of a price guarantee and a loan underwrite is a decent hedge against wildly changing circumstances. The political price exists everywhere though.

    For NL windmills are heavily opposed on land by the centre right. They want them in sea, which is slower to build and more expensive. We've also fallen behind on transforming our energy network, and all these variable inputs are putting heavy strain on the net.

    Steam: SanderJK Origin: SanderJK
  • TarantioTarantio Registered User regular
    Where can I read about that plan Germany has? I'm wondering if they have a plan for energy storage, or just want to import energy to cover gaps from wind and solar.

  • EchoEcho ski-bap ba-dapModerator mod
    I'm way out of date, how big of an issue is energy distribution/storage nowadays?

  • SanderJKSanderJK Crocodylus Pontifex Sinterklasicus Madrid, 3000 ADRegistered User regular
    Echo wrote: »
    I'm way out of date, how big of an issue is energy distribution/storage nowadays?

    There are 164563 proposed solutions but nothing is really crystalizing. The variable input is really harsh because you need to balance supply and demand precisely and in seconds, and the more windmills and solar panels you have, the bigger the swings.

    Steam: SanderJK Origin: SanderJK
    Echo
  • CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    I'm not sure I agree with that assessment. Japan has over 40 Nuclear Reactors, and like 30% of their power came from Nuclear energy before Fukushima, Fukushima was the first real nuclear disaster they had and it was pretty much entirely for contextual reasons that don't apply to pretty much any plant, and definitely wouldn't apply to any plant designed after Fukushima was in like, the 70's. On top of that the actual death toll and environmental and health impact of Fukushima itself was incredibly low. Fukushima was mismanaged by the company in most of the ways it could be related to the disaster, and it was still far less damaging or deadly than most of the alternatives that do what Nuclear does in terms of power generation. Even in natural disaster prone areas, with the correctly engineered plants Nuclear is still a safe, reliable choice for energy production. More people are likely to get cancer every year from any single coal power plant running normally than at Fukushima when it went wrong.

    There's nothing we can currently build that couldn't be destroyed by a large enough earthquake or hurricane, and the issue with saying "there's only a chance of catastrophe if people fuck up" is that... well... people do fuck up. All the time. As you said Fukushima was the result of an entire string of fuck ups. I'd hardly call the fact that a chunk of Japan is going to be uninhabitable for a long time to come inconsequential.

    I'm not anti-nuclear, far from it. I do think we need to be realistic about where we can and should build these things. That means not building them on flood plains, tornado/hurricane areas, tsunami areas, or within [x] km of known fault lines. Even with a miniscule chance of catastrophic failure, the consequences are too serious to risk since on a long enough timescale with enough rolls of the dice even the lowest odds eventually pay out. All that said I agree with you nuclear scare is often overstated and there needs to be a middle ground of sensible precautions between repeating past mistakes and allowing fear to rule out a viable energy source.

  • AntinumericAntinumeric Registered User regular
    If Fukushima were a coal plant we'd be talking about the immense ecological devastation caused by tonnes of coal ash flowing into the sea.

    In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence.
    Lord_AsmodeusKayne Red RobeFencingsaxIncenjucarpainfulPleasanceshrykeForar
  • ChanusChanus Tenderly caressing my own burgundy harp. Registered User regular
    If Fukushima were a coal plant we'd be talking about the immense ecological devastation caused by tonnes of coal ash flowing into the sea.

    which is also mildly radioactive btw

    Allegedly a voice of reason.
    AntinumericLord_AsmodeusFencingsaxHonkIncenjucarpainfulPleasanceMillMrVyngaardthatassemblyguyshrykeBlackDragon480
  • Mc zanyMc zany Registered User regular
    edited October 2021
    Not to mention that it took a disaster so big it moved the entire country by a few inches to cause problems.

    Mc zany on
    Lord_AsmodeusGiantGeek2020FencingsaxIncenjucarpainfulPleasanceshrykeBlackDragon480
  • [Expletive deleted][Expletive deleted] The mediocre doctor NorwayRegistered User regular
    Two pieces of terrorism-related news out of Norway yesterday and today.

    Yesterday at about 1830, a white Danish man went on a murder spree in Kongsberg, Norway, killing 5 people and injuring 2 more, using a bow and arrow (possibly also other weapons, reports unlcear). The man, who is a recent convert to Islam, was captured alive. Police are saying this may be a terror attack. (Or not. He's previously threatened to kill two of his own family members. None of those killed appear to be related to him, however.)

    Today, the new Norwegian government was announced. It is a coalition of AP (labor) and SP (rural populists), and forms a minority government. 10 of the 19 ministers are women. Two of the ministers (lower education and commerce) are survivors of the Utøya massacre that was part of the 22 July 2011 terror attacks in Norway (perpetrated by a Norwegian white nationalist).

    Sic transit gloria mundi.
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    On the topic of nuclear power and Japan, is worth mentioning that their shiny new Prime Minister opened on parliament with this:
    After the nuclear disaster that struck Fukushima in 2011, Japan quickly moved to phase out nuclear power. Two years after a tsunami led to three nuclear meltdowns at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plan, Japan had shut down its entire fleet of nuclear power generators.

    Fumio Kishida, Japan's new prime minister, wants to change that. "It's crucial that we restart nuclear power plants," Kishida said to parliament on Monday, his first time facing questions in parliament since becoming prime minister last Monday, reports Reuters.
    "It goes without saying that renewable energy is important, but our country is in the midst of a digitization drive, which means that electricity demand is going to increase sharply," Kishida said Friday, according to Nikkei. "When you think about this, you realize that supply stability and affordability are just as important as the amount of emissions. That means that we need to have a variety of energy sources, including nuclear and hydrogen as well as renewables."

    People aren't going to consume less electricity, they are going to consume more. And that electricity has to come from somewhere. So.

    LanlaornLord_AsmodeusFencingsaxStarZapperGiantGeek2020painfulPleasanceMillDark Raven XAegisshrykeBlackDragon480
  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray Registered User regular
    edited October 2021
    Two pieces of terrorism-related news out of Norway yesterday and today.

    Yesterday at about 1830, a white Danish man went on a murder spree in Kongsberg, Norway, killing 5 people and injuring 2 more, using a bow and arrow (possibly also other weapons, reports unlcear). The man, who is a recent convert to Islam, was captured alive. Police are saying this may be a terror attack. (Or not. He's previously threatened to kill two of his own family members. None of those killed appear to be related to him, however.)

    Today, the new Norwegian government was announced. It is a coalition of AP (labor) and SP (rural populists), and forms a minority government. 10 of the 19 ministers are women. Two of the ministers (lower education and commerce) are survivors of the Utøya massacre that was part of the 22 July 2011 terror attacks in Norway (perpetrated by a Norwegian white nationalist).
    It's so grotesque. The media is mostly reporting on it because of the spectacle of it all. But really it's a horrible attack first and foremost.


    I work for Gouda, we're the sister city of Kongsberg and we're flying flags half mast, had the city poet write a poem (please read in your thickest Dutch accent because uhh it's not very eloquent) and our mayor Verhoeve has phoned mayor Sand to offer his condolences.

    f3d8auzj30fr.png

    Aldo on
  • honoverehonovere Registered User regular
    edited October 2021
    Centre-lefts in Italy have won the local run off elections in Rome and Turin. They already won Milan, Naples and Bologna two weeks ago against a right-wing coalition. Especially Rome has been a traditionally conservative.
    https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/centre-left-well-ahead-rome-turin-mayoral-elections-exit-poll-2021-10-18/

    Nationally Conservatives/right-wingers are still ahead though.

    Edit: In German Coalition talks - Social Democrats and Greens already caved to the Liberals on a new wealth tax, inheritance tax, and higher top rate tax. Also no speed limits on highways.

    So even before the actual talks start, the Liberals - smallest party in the would be coalition - gets to keep all their election promises while the two larger parties are breaking theirs. Meanwhile the top 10 percent already own more than 50 percent of all the wealth.

    honovere on
    Kayne Red RobeStarZapper
  • TastyfishTastyfish Registered User regular
    edited October 2021
    SanderJK wrote: »
    There probably is a future where we completely electrify, and then the excess power is turned into hydrogen, or used to pump water to higher ground. (Or some other midterm battery)

    The question remains if nuclear is not a money pit. Germany has a plan that is basically 100-150% daily coverage with just wind and solar, and they claim it's already cheaper than building nuclear, not accounting for solar/wind still becoming cheaper. Then again the political reality in Germany makes nuclear nearly impossible. (It's a core tenet of the Green Party, and the CDU has taken over the stance under Merkel)

    Practically the downside is not so large. In the grand scheme of things losing a few billion over 40 years because of a price guarantee and a loan underwrite is a decent hedge against wildly changing circumstances. The political price exists everywhere though.

    For NL windmills are heavily opposed on land by the centre right. They want them in sea, which is slower to build and more expensive. We've also fallen behind on transforming our energy network, and all these variable inputs are putting heavy strain on the net.

    Sorry, are we just glossing over the fact that the political wing typically all for history and tradition is against Windmills in the Netherlands?

    Tastyfish on
    StarZapperFencingsaxFANTOMASshryke
  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray Registered User regular
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    SanderJK wrote: »
    There probably is a future where we completely electrify, and then the excess power is turned into hydrogen, or used to pump water to higher ground. (Or some other midterm battery)

    The question remains if nuclear is not a money pit. Germany has a plan that is basically 100-150% daily coverage with just wind and solar, and they claim it's already cheaper than building nuclear, not accounting for solar/wind still becoming cheaper. Then again the political reality in Germany makes nuclear nearly impossible. (It's a core tenet of the Green Party, and the CDU has taken over the stance under Merkel)

    Practically the downside is not so large. In the grand scheme of things losing a few billion over 40 years because of a price guarantee and a loan underwrite is a decent hedge against wildly changing circumstances. The political price exists everywhere though.

    For NL windmills are heavily opposed on land by the centre right. They want them in sea, which is slower to build and more expensive. We've also fallen behind on transforming our energy network, and all these variable inputs are putting heavy strain on the net.

    Sorry, are we just glossing over the fact that the political wing typically all for history and tradition is against Windmills in the Netherlands?

    You may have noticed a few differences between a wooden windmill and a recent one.

    Also, they would have definitely NIMBY'd the fuck out of all windmills. Like, this was Schiedam in 1820:
    8z00ujf9a0l8.png
    (found here)
    These specific mills were mainly used in the production of Dutch gin and would be grinding grain for as many hours as the winds would allow. The noise of the huge wooden structures full of moving parts and the massive millstones grinding over each other would be intense and the tall structures would put parts of the city in shadows.

    All stuff that voters of the center right would absolutely try to NIMBY out of their residential areas. These voters are often homeowners who are generally more concerned with the value of their property than any 'common good' effects of whatever windmills can produce.

    StarZapperCouscous
  • autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    Crazy shit happening at the border to Belarus

    kFJhXwE.jpgkFJhXwE.jpg
    Brainleech
  • autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    edited November 2021
    Short write up:

    Long story short, it looks like Belarus is deliberately getting people from war torn countries like Iraq and Syria under the guise of "vaccination", and then flying them to Minsk, afterwards forcing them to the border to Poland.

    The people there are then given axes, shovels and wire cutters, and told to go forward or else. Gunshots have been apparently heard on the Belarus' side of the border, seemingly indicating that people are at least forced by warning shots to advance, all this as retribution for the sanctions the EU put on Belarus after they forced that airplane with a a Belarusian dissident to land under false pretenses some time ago.

    Lukashenko also had an interview where HE accuses the EU of "hybrid warfare" in a classic case of stupid "no u", after the EU accused him of deliberately bringing these people to the border to destabilize EU countries. In the same interview he then continued to say that "poland better not commit a single error, because Russia is watching and has the biggest arsenal of nukes on the planet."

    The EU so far is saying this is blackmail, and is currently planning to extend sanctions on Belarus, on all airlines and companies and possibly countries involved in the Belarus scheme, and has specifically said that "they're watching Russia".

    Polish opposition has called for NATO article 4 to be activated, but Poland far wants to do this on their own.

    Chancellor Merkel has been talking with Putin to try and de-escalate the situation, because no one has any illusions about who's really calling the shots here.

    Some sources:
    https://m.dw.com/en/russias-putin-backs-brotherly-belarus-amid-eu-pressure/a-59726101

    https://m.dw.com/en/belarus-migrant-crisis-germany-calls-for-new-eu-sanctions/a-59772930

    https://m.dw.com/en/how-will-eu-react-to-poland-belarus-border-crisis/a-59770240

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1519332/eu-news-Alexander-Lukashenko-Belarus-migrant-border

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-59215769

    https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-11-10/merkel-asks-putin-intervene-belarus-migrant-standoff

    autono-wally, erotibot300 on
    kFJhXwE.jpgkFJhXwE.jpg
    Aldothatassemblyguyshryke
  • ScooterScooter Registered User regular
    I've noticed that Russia-related dickswinging always seems to come down to their nukes, because that seems to be all they've got.

    autono-wally, erotibot300GiantGeek2020SmrtnikthatassemblyguyLord_AsmodeusshrykeAim
  • autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    They've got a lot of tanks, too..

    kFJhXwE.jpgkFJhXwE.jpg
  • autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    But those probably don't get mentioned, because a more realistic threat would make people way more nervous and angry

    kFJhXwE.jpgkFJhXwE.jpg
  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray Registered User regular
    I had deliberately ignored the news on that as it's such a frustrating subject I can't do anything about. Lukashenko acting like the unhinged dictator that he is comes as no surprise, but the grotesque nature of his actions is always upsetting.
    Scooter wrote: »
    I've noticed that Russia-related dickswinging always seems to come down to their nukes, because that seems to be all they've got.

    They've annexed part of the Krim with a conventional army.

    GiantGeek2020autono-wally, erotibot300Commander ZoomJragghenthatassemblyguyjakobaggerBlackDragon480
  • autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    Some news outlets now report that Belarus' troops entered the polish side 200 meters deep to tear down border fortifications, loaded their guns and aimed them at the polish policemen and soldiers, but then did not fire.

    This is some extremely dangerous level of escalation, if true.

    kFJhXwE.jpgkFJhXwE.jpg
    GiantGeek2020CouscousAldoJragghenthatassemblyguySmrtnikshrykeKayne Red Robe
  • autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    Not to fear, Russia is de-escalating by.... Sending nuclear capable bombers to fly over the airspace of Belarus for "protection"

    kFJhXwE.jpgkFJhXwE.jpg
    Brainleech
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    Scooter wrote: »
    I've noticed that Russia-related dickswinging always seems to come down to their nukes, because that seems to be all they've got.

    *Looks at Ukraine*
    Eh, not really

  • autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    The 200m deep intrusion apparently already happened some days ago, so this isn't even a new level of escalation.

    This is some bad shit. All it takes is one false decision by a single soldier and this goes up in flames.

    kFJhXwE.jpgkFJhXwE.jpg
    thatassemblyguyGiantGeek2020
  • autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    edited November 2021
    https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-blames-eu-looming-catastrophe-over-migrants-belarus-poland-border-2021-11-10/

    Here's a link to Russia sending 2 strategic bombers and blaming the EU (of course)

    autono-wally, erotibot300 on
    kFJhXwE.jpgkFJhXwE.jpg
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    I'm not touching you, wait actually I am, watchoo gon do about it?

    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    autono-wally, erotibot300thatassemblyguyGiantGeek2020
  • JusticeforPlutoJusticeforPluto Registered User regular
    I mean, what will the EU do about it? Will Germany actually stop buying Russian gas and invest in their military? Will this get the ball rolling on a common EU Army or at least defense plan?

    Sadly the safety of Eastern Europe is secured by NATO (aka the US).

    TryCatcherSmrtnikGiantGeek2020shryke
  • autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    Germany buying Russian gas isn't just something they do cause they're "lazy" about getting rid of it.

    It's specifically meant to keep Russia at the negotiation table and show them that Europe sees them as someone they can make a deal with, not just "the enemy".

    Plus, the idea is that the money keeps Russia from going too crazy, cause Putin looves money.

    Germany probably won't invest too much in their own army for similar reasons, makes Russia kinda nervous to see Germany re-arm.

    European Army would be nice tho

    kFJhXwE.jpgkFJhXwE.jpg
    thatassemblyguyAim
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    In other words, Germany can't be counted as a reliable ally against Putin.

    Thanks for clarifying that.

    And of course that the country with 8 US Army bases doesn't see the point of a National army. Duh.

    LanlaornSmrtnik
Sign In or Register to comment.