Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[Velasco]

Once Russian oligarchs can't travel and move money about with impunity and if the West impose the most extreme economic sanctions, then it will be a short war.

Do you think Europe can afford the imposition of "extreme sanctions", given the ongoing energy crisis and the dependency of countries like Germany on the Russian gas?

[Velasco]

Good article.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/19/ukraine-russia-nato-crisis-liberal-illusions/

Realpolitik

Had this rosy vision been accurate, spreading democracy and extending U.S. security guarantees into Russia’s traditional sphere of influence would have posed few risks. But that outcome was unlikely, as any good realist could have told you. Indeed, opponents of enlargement were quick to warn that Russia would inevitably regard NATO enlargement as a threat and going ahead with it would poison relations with Moscow. That is why several prominent U.S. experts—including diplomat George Kennan, author Michael Mandelbaum, and former defense secretary William Perry—opposed enlargement from the start (...)   

[Velasco]

The British government says it’s intelligence indicates that Russia will attempt a regime change in Ukraine

https://apnews.com/article/d6425c531f277b9dfb099511999822f4

This would disgrace the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians that rallied for and won their self governance eight years ago. Biden and Boris better toughen up immediately.

The last thing Biden needs at this juncture is to appear as weak and feckless as President Carter was during the Iran hostage crisis.  Especially in the wake of our less-than-ideal withdrawal from Afghanistan last summer.  For heaven's sake, he tried to present himself during the campaign as the Democratic equivalent of President George H. W. Bush with his supposedly vast foreign policy experience as head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  I would like to see him prove it.  

The "less-than-ideal" withdrawal from Afghanistan is a limestone that marks a presidency. The repercussions will be more serious than those of the Iran hostage crisis, which led to the  electoral efeat of Jimmy Carter but didn't have consequences for the role of the USA as a global superpower. The withdrawal from Afghanistan reveals weakness and impotence, as well it can be seen as a sign of decline. I have no doubt Putin was taking note, for he was a KGB member by the time of the withdrawal that anticipated the demise of the USSR (Afghanistan, 1989). Of course the USA won't collapse like the Soviet Union did in 1991, but they are are weaker now under Biden than they were in 1979 under Carter. Putin lacks the resources for a large scale invasion, but he has cards to play exploiting the present weaknesses of the US and Europe. Any evolution of this conflict involving deployment of force and sanctions will be damaging for the global economy and impact the declining hegemony of the West.

[Velasco]

The 'Biden doctrine' and the Ukrainian gaffe. A mixed year in foreign policy

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/23/biden-ukraine-russia-foreign-policy-afghanistan-china-nato

  Joe Biden marked his first anniversary in office with a gaffe over Ukraine that undid weeks of disciplined messaging and diplomatic preparation.

The president’s suggestion that a “minor incursion” by Russia might split Nato over how to respond sent the White House into frantic damage limitation mode (...)

[Velasco]

Not sure if it's the right place for this but this Lithuanian MP is spitting pure facts

https://mobile.twitter.com/MatasMaldeikis/status/1485569942023983109

Based

As I said earlier in the thread: it's Europe, what state is not a construct?

That's generally the case all over the world, so the "it's Europe" part is odd. All states in the Americas and nearly all in Africa (only three exceptions) are ahistorical constructs, while it's Asia and Europe that have nearly all of the states with old (in some cases very old) historical roots even if the modern borders are different.

For your information, once upon a time there was a medieval state called Rus. The capital of Rus was located in Kiev. The so-called Kievan Rus is the historical precedent of present-day Russia. I'm spitting pure facts

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Kyivan-Rus

I don't think that's a pretext for an invasion, but the tweet about the Grand Duchy pf Lithuania is moronic. Kievan Rus is older

[Velasco]

Did you intend to reply to someone else??

Yes, the guy who posted the tweet from a Lithuanian MP

[Velasco]

Leonid Kravchuk was the last head of state of the Ukrainian SSR, as well as the first Ukrainian president

I think the USSR formally recognized the right to self-determination for its constituent republics,  so all of them have the right to exist as independent countries.

Another question is whether the dissolution of the USSR could have been implemented in a more orderly fashion, retaining some common institutions to solve disputes and foster regional cooperation.

Personally I think it was a huge mistake expanding the EU eastwards. One can wonder whether certain countries were ready for liberal democracy,  because the illiberal turn of Poland and Hungary suggests otherwise. It should have been a more gradual process,  imo. As for expanding the NATO to the Russian borders, it's hard to argue this move is unrelated to the rise of certain forms of Russian nationalism. In other words, western countries can't criticize Putin's nationalism without asking themsrlves in what degree they've contributed to that. Maybe the architecture of security and international relationships could have been different

Of course Ukraine should exist, but it's hard to argue against the idea that it looks like a failed and disfunctional state. It is also hard to ignore that Ukraine has a powerful neighbour called Russia and that there exists a strong historical connection between both nations. Ukraine should exist, but I doubt Ukraine can exist against Russia

[Velasco]

I don't think this conflict ends here so this is going to be more than Donbass so it's incorrect to act like that's all that's happening in 2022. But sanctions are not of material value. This has been proven time and time again in multiple countries.

What's the correct course of action in your view?

[Velasco]

Interesting we haven't heard anything of Gregor Gysi (Foreign Policy spokesperson of the parliamentary group), Sevim Dağdelen (spokesperson for disarmament) and Sahra Wagenknecht (enfant terrible) yet, gee, I wonder why.

I'd be genuinely interested to know the thoughts of Gregor Gysi, for he is a very interesting character

I have some deja vu sensation reading about Die Linke and Russia (I'm more familiar to Podemos and Venezuela). Anyway Vladimir Putin's brand of nationalism has more supporters among the ranks of Viktor Orban (but not among the ranks of the Polish guys, for some reason)

[Velasco]

I don't think this conflict ends here so this is going to be more than Donbass so it's incorrect to act like that's all that's happening in 2022. But sanctions are not of material value. This has been proven time and time again in multiple countries.

What's the correct course of action in your view?

Well they're not going to be deploy troops inside Ukraine. They've made that perfectly clear.

Sanctions just don't accomplish what the people doing the sanctioning intend them to do. We know this from Iraq, Iran, Middle East en masse, Cuba, Russia, North Korea. If it's to punish the powerful, they'll find a way around in the incredibly opaque global financial system. If it's to punish the weak so they will challenge the powerful to upend the status quo, when has that worked? That Europe and the U.S. have settled on sanctions shows they're powerless to do anything that will directly challenge Russian control of Donbass. The Russians are still on sanctions from 7 years ago.

As far as what I would do, at Ukrainian request deploy NATO ships into the Black Sea close to the Ukrainian coastline and the Crimean peninsula (probably not smart to go into the Sea of Azov). I would put a boot in the ass of the Ukrainian government to get them to finally prepare defensively for an invasion, provide them intelligence and pointers to aid them in their defense (that should be done now). If they can't be bothered, if Ukraine doesn't care about getting invaded, why should the West? That's a very flippant take but defending the country is literally the military's raison d'etre, use them for that purpose.

I concur sanctions have proven ineffective in those cases you mention, but I'm a bit surprised to read "the powerful (...) will find a way around the incredibly opaque global financial system". I agree completely on  your assesment on the financial system,  I'd never expect that from a yellow avatar

More seriously, I think the West is already providing assistance to Ukraine in terms of material and information. Also, I heard from the news some troops have been deployed to Poland and Romania on the Black Sea. I don't know what can be done by putting a boot on the ass of the Ukrainian government. I doubt it's possible to counter Russian superiority without sending troops there (a non-starter): it's not the fault of Ukrainnians that Russia is stronger than them. The precedents of Afghanistan and Vietnam might show you there are no promising perspectives for western proxies in Ukraine. On the other hand, a massive deployment on the Black Sea could be seen as an act of aggression by the Russian government,  which is a nuclear power.

I mean, this conflict is nearly impossible to solve and it won't be solved by means different from diplomacy. Eventually the only way western countries can exert pressure on Russia is through sanctions, which effects are limited.  Meanwhile this conflict reveals to be a collective failure, but particularly a failure of the "liberal order" promoted by the western countries that Putin deems decadent. Increasing escalation will be very damaging for the economy, particularly in Western Europe.  The only international actor that will benefit from this scenario is China,  which adopts an attitude of prudent silence

[Velasco]

Personally I think it was a huge mistake expanding the EU eastwards. One can wonder whether certain countries were ready for liberal democracy,  because the illiberal turn of Poland and Hungary suggests otherwise. It should have been a more gradual process,  imo. As for expanding the NATO to the Russian borders, it's hard to argue this move is unrelated to the rise of certain forms of Russian nationalism. In other words, western countries can't criticize Putin's nationalism without asking themsrlves in what degree they've contributed to that. Maybe the architecture of security and international relationships could have been different

If the EU, and especially NATO, hadn’t expanded eastwards, Putin would be doing exactly what he is doing right now. The difference is it would be not just to Ukraine, but also to the Baltics and perhaps Poland. This is such a tired talking point, and it’s a damn good thing for the lives and livelihoods of tens of millions of eastern and central Europeans that NATO and the EU did manage to expand eastwards before Russia could pull the kind of sh—t that it’s pulling now.

The EU and NATO extensions are previous to Putin's accesion to power, so I don't think that's a valid argument. Actually, you are making counterfactual history on the assumption of the inevitability of Putin and the imperialistic ambitions of post-soviet Russia. When the western countries promised Mikhail Gorbachev the NATO would not expand eastwards from Poland, the USSR was still existing. It is impossible to know how things could have been if done differently, but I refuse to accept the notion that Putin was historically inevitable

[Velasco]

That would be the German Green Party you can thank for making their country more heavily dependent on Russian-sourced energy. It would not surprise me if you dug into their finances you see some funds coming from Russia.

Leaving the fact aside that I have been personally acquainted with the German Greens' last three treasurers, I would like to point out that Annalena Baerbock had always been vocally opposed to Nord Stream 2 and subject to Russian desinformation campaigns during the 2021 election (https://m.tagesspiegel.de/politik/russland-mischt-sich-in-wahlkampf-ein-gezielte-diffamierung-von-annalena-baerbock/27291998.html). That would make Russian foreign policy rather schizophrenic and self-defeating wouldn't it? Also, the current exit from nuclear energy was passed by a CDU/FDP government led by Angela Merkel in 2011 (the Greens weren't opposed to that decision though, of course).

While I would be willing to concede that it is a valid opinion to hold that a simultanous exit from nuclear, coal, and (particularly Russian) gas as the Greens are proposing it is unrealistic, you are starting to delve into conspiracy theories here that could be considered equally unrealistic, if not more so.

I think Angela Merkel adopted her decision on power nuclear exit after the Fukushima accident, which caused an understandable wave of concern in public opinion. On the other hand, the European Commission recently adopted the decision to declare gas and nuclear power sustainable. Such declaration has been labeled as "greenwashing". I'd like to remark nevertheless the highly positive influence of the German Greens in public opinion, to the point a centre-right politician like Ursula von der Leyen states her great sensibility on climate action and environment

https://www.dw.com/en/european-commission-declares-nuclear-and-gas-to-be-green/a-60614990

European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen cannot repeat often enough how close stepping up climate action is to her heart.

She described the European Green Deal as "Europe's man on the moon moment." She has called climate neutrality "our European destiny." And she solemnly proclaimed that no effort will be spared for Europe to become the world's first continent with net-zero emissions.

But as often, the devil is in the detail (...)  

Of course the devil is in the detail, because "lower carbon emissions" is not neccessarilly equivalent to "sustainable energy". While it's legitimate to discuss whether nuclear power and gas can be used as "transitional" sources, declaring them "sustainable" is as misleading as talking about "Green Capitalism"

Regarding collusions between German politicians and Russian interests,  I think targeting the German Greens is incredibly dumb and misguided. You don't need too much research to find out that, after exiting chancellorship, Gerhard Schroeder started a succesful career as Gazprom lobbyst

[Velasco]

Why do self-declared “anti-imperialists” somehow only mean what they perceive as U.S. imperialism to be bad and that it certainly doesn’t refer to the actions of those who are hostile to the U.S.?

LMAO

Two questions:

1) Where did you read I call myself "anti-imperialist"?

2) Where did you read I endorse powers hostile to the US as my default option?

I recall having stated my opposition to an invasion of Ukraine by Russian troops, but anyway let me tell you I can't stand hysterical dumbs.

(This is an interesting question to ask about unrecognized entities, like — to name a spectrum — Taiwan or Palestine or Kosovo or the DNR/LNR. But of course Ukraine, a universally recognized UN member, does exist and therefore has a right to.)

I think the cases of Taiwan and Palestine are very different, both in terms of international recognition and viability.  

•A quick Google seatch reveals that Taiwan is formally recognized by 15 countries as of 2022

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-that-recognize-taiwan

 The following 15 nations recognize Taiwan as a sovereign country: Guatemala, Honduras, Haiti, Paraguay, Nicaragua, Eswatini, Tuvalu, Nauru, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Marshall Isalnds, Palau, and the Vatican City (U.N. non-member).  

Meanwhile the State of Palestine was recognized by 138 countries as of 2019, as well it has achieved a an observer status within the UN since 2012

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine#:~:text=As%20of%2031%20July%202019,67/19%20in%20November%202012.

As of 31 July 2019, 138 of the 193 United Nations (UN) member states and two non-member states have recognised it (Israel is recognized by 164). Palestine also has been a non-member observer state of the UN General Assembly since the passing of United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19 in November 2012.  

• However in terms of viability and the reality on the ground,  the situation is the opposite

Palestine is an occupied country where Israel rxerts absolute control on 2/3 of the West Bank territory (Area C), while the so-called "PNA" (the UN recognized the "State of Palestine " as an observer) has a limited control over the rest of that territory (Areas B and C). Actually what we currently call "Palestine " is a disjointed territory splitted between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, while we call "Israel" to the rest of the territory behind the Green Line. The situation on the ground is that all these territories -that once were the historical Palestine- are now under the control of the Israeli state, which implements a cruel regime of domination over millions of disenfranchised Palestinians (particularly in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, which is crossed by the serpent-shaped Apartheid Wall). All these territories are annexed (formally or de facto) to Israel, saving the Gaza Strip

Taiwan is an island ruled by the government of the so-called "Republic of China" (ROC).  Either you call it "Taiwan" or "ROC", that mostly unrecognized country is de facto a sovereign state

• There is a third interesting difference regarding national identity.  Palestinians define themselves as such (including most of "Arab Israelis "), while I suspect the folks in Taiwan regard themselves as "Chinese"

Regardless of whether some states are viable or "should exist" (who is entitled to concede statehood?, on what grounds?), there are other important questions to address.  I would argue individuals from stateless peoples (Palestinians, Kurds, Sahrawis...) are entitled to basic rights, such as access to citizenship and the recognition of their national identities

[Velasco]

Why do self-declared “anti-imperialists” somehow only mean what they perceive as U.S. imperialism to be bad and that it certainly doesn’t refer to the actions of those who are hostile to the U.S.?

LMAO

Two questions:

1) Where did you read I call myself "anti-imperialist"?

2) Where did you read I endorse powers hostile to the US as my default option?

I recall having stated my opposition to an invasion of Ukraine by Russian troops, but anyway let me tell you I can't stand hysterical dumbs.

Ah, not addressing my main point and adding a personal attack on top of it! Classy! I base my comment on your overall posting history, and your repeating the Russian lies over NATO expansion as fact. But anyway let me tell you I can’t stand arrogant, hypocritical, left-wing f***wits.

What's your main point, genius? Didn't you attack me in first place? Don't you know bold letters sound vociferously in the internet?

The NATO extension is one of the main pretexts cited by Putin to justify a possible aggression to Ukraine, yes. Said this, arguing that I'm repeating "Putin's lies" because I think such thing was a mistake reveals ignorance, lack of reading comprehension and bad faith.

My criticism on the quick extension of the NATO and the EU, as well as the attitude of the West towards the fotmer USSR after its collapse, is not aimed at justifying reactionary autocrats like Vladimir Putin

The collapse of the USSR and the subsequent chaos caused a serious impact that affected the psychology and self-esteem of the Russian people. Many Russians felt they were humiliated by the West and are longing a comeback of Russia as a global superpower. Putin takes advantage of these feelings, not unlike German nationalists took advantage of the feelings of humiliation caused by the defeat in WWI and especially by the Treaty of Versailles

As I outlined in a previous post, the best way to prevent the rise of certain brand of nationalism in Russia was not expanding the NATO to the east. The end of the Cold War opened a window of opportunity to build a different international order. I'm not speaking about "spheres of influence " or "buffer zones", but rather about some sort of Marshall plan. What was the point in preservIng the NATO once the Cold War was over? In the beginning Mikhail Gorbachev had the intent to transform the crumnbling USSR, following the socialdemocratic path of the Nordic countries. Why the West didn't help him and opted to isolate Russia instead? Either ideological arrogance or blindness prevented the West from realizing of the dangers. Putin's nationalism is in good part a consequence of that.

[Velasco]

To make such statements NOW, in the context of Russia invading Ukraine, absolutely is engaging in whataboutism. “Yeah Russia shouldn’t be there, but what about NATO breaking their promise not to expand east?” That’s mealy-mouthed bothsides-ism looking to justify Russia’s position. Oh wait let me f****ing quote you again:

When the western countries promised Mikhail Gorbachev the NATO would not expand eastwards from Poland

First of all, you’re getting your pro-Putin talking points wrong because they’re claiming the promise is that NATO wouldn’t expand eastwards from Germany, not Poland.

Second of all, that’s Russian revisionist history in their claiming they were promised eternal control over all their former satellites and former republics.

Third of all, who the f*** is Russia to claim a sphere of influence over other countries? As much as the likes of you bitch over American influence in Latin America it’s incredibly hypocritical to turn around and say Russia should’ve been given its own sphere of influence. Although that didn’t stop Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela from doing exactly that!

The idea that Russian wounded pride needed to be assuaged by letting them dominate their neighbors after the U.S.S.R. collapsed is trampling on the desires, wishes, and national sovereignty of every country east of Germany and west of Russia. Or are you overlooking the level of plundering and abuse the U.S.S.R./Russia inflicted on them for fifty years?

The only good point you have been is that more could’ve been done to develop Russia, but given how much aid vanished due to corruption as it was I’m not sure anything would’ve been enough.

In terms of forging peace, prosperity, and freedom, golly gee the combination of NATO and the EU has done an amazing job of that. Unless you think NATO should’ve occupied Russia after 1991 it’s not the fault of the West that Russia turned into a kleptocratic mafia state.

You mention the parallel of the Treaty of Versailles and Germany? Ah yes, “it wasn’t our fault we became Nazis it was everyone else’s fault” such a convenient way to dodge responsibility when it’s always the fault of an outsider.

Russia, and Russia alone, bears responsibility for this entire f***ed up situation. Not Ukraine, not NATO, not the EU, and not *****gasps***** the US! I know, not being able to blame the US for everything goes against the stance of a certain strain of the International Le Putin's aggtft, but you tankies are busy showing your true colore over this crisis, just like your counterparts on the International Right.

I read about those who refused to see the truth of what Nazi Germany meant for the future, but I never thought I’d witness the same type of phenomena in person.

Whataboutism is not trying to explain Putin's nationalism in the context of recent history,  but rather trying to justify it arguing the other side is worse. Given that I'm not justifying Putin's aggression,  your claim is false.  I want to clarify Putin's regime is by no means comparable to Nazi Germany. I made an analogy to the Treaty of Versailles because that's a good example of bad approaches that had fatal consequences. Neither that treaty justifies the crimes of the Nazi regime nor Hitler was the only German nationalist. The rest of your post is simply too hysterical

[Velasco]

Footage of the Russian invasion

https://twitter.com/eldiarioes/status/1496777922899709953?t=1C7tOD_gR-hCUYcUqiIu...

This is a terrible day that we won't forget

[Velasco]

Regime change in Moscow must now be the end goal. This requires stepping up cyber and information warfare efforts significantly, including the requisition of the services of all major social media companies. Clandestine funding of opposition groups in Russia with siginificant sums has become imperarative. Everything Russia has accused the West of in the past must now be done for real, and multiplied times ten.

Ah, and is there any way to suspend a country from the UN security council? I guess China could veto it, but that doesn't hinder all other countries to boycott Russia's attendence and meet in their absence.

So how are you going to get funds to ‘opposition groups’ if you also support draconian sanctions to cut the Russian economy off from the West? How will you prevent the Kremlin from impounding these funds? Most importantly, what ‘regime’ do you want to bring in in Moscow? Who will it be comprised of? Will the army be on board? The security services? How will you make it legitimate to those Russians who aren’t emigrés or living in the Petersburg/Moscow bubble?

I think this escalation by Putin may well be an overreach that brings harm to the Russian people as well as those of the Ukraine. Nonetheless, talk of the West attempting ‘regime’ change in Russia  is foolish and irresponsible, especially if it percolates up to people holding actual positions on power in western countries.

It's not foolish and irresponsible. It's what's necessary.

A regime change in Russia would be fantastic, providing the new regime is more democratic than the precedent. Sadly, and regardless of whether you deem it a neccessary or a foolish and irresponsible development, such a thing sounds utterly unrealistic

Anyway the future repercussions of these tragic events are completely unpredictable

[Velasco]

Garry Kasparov recommends supporting Ukraine with everything but boots on the ground

https://twitter.com/Kasparov63/status/1496865471995523080?t=66bsaKsk4VU0eGKlnTXH...

[Velasco]

Agree. You cannot overstate the morale boost he is providing.

I commend Zelensky's personal courage. He may have done a poor job preparing his nation for war, but there's no doubt he is now raising the morale of his nation and boosting their will to fight. Looks like it was enough for the Ukrainians to hold Kiev for now, but he is still under threat and if he were captured it would crush Ukrainian morale. He either has a highly secret (and likely highly dangerous) plan to evacuate when he is under imminent threat, or it is his intention to become a martyr. Nothing of the former has leaked so I think the latter is a real possibility.

Right now Zelensky is revealing himself as a living example of courage and dignity.  Regardless of his previous record as president or his personal skills, he is performing quite well under these tragic circumstances. Kudos to him and to all the people that is trying to resist the attack of an overwhelmingly superior army

Worth mentioning too the heroic and anonymous Russians that defy repression to demonstrate against this imperialist aggression

[Velasco]

While I used to be able to sympathize with some of Putin's views on certain issues, now I just can't. Putin is 100% without a doubt a war criminal now and I do not sympathize with war criminals! I still don't support US troops in Ukraine and hope that both sides can find a solution rather quickly, which sadly looks pretty unlikely at this point.

Just thought I'd give my two cents.

 I am trying to restrain myself from hyperbole in asking this, but on what possible issues could one agree with Vladimir Putin on? Serious question.

Bringing stability to your country and raising it up from being an Oligarch dominated disaster zone like Russia in the 1990s or the United States.

Lmao at the idea that Russia is better than the US today . Heck I’d say Jim Crow South USA > Russia has ever been

Russia is by no means better than the US today, but Cassius has a point remarking that (before launching this imperialistic adventure) Putin "raised" his country and brought "stability". The surge of Putin and his brand of nationalism (imperialist, militarist and revanchist) can be better explained considering the ruinous and chaotic state of Russia in the 1990s. While Putin's aggression cannot be justified by any means, the West should have never left a Russia alone snd to its own devices when the USSR collapsed.  That was a gross irresponsibility and now we are suffering the consequences,  in my humble opinion

Also, why billionaires in the US are not labeled as "oligarchs" like their Russian counterparts? If you consider the power amassed by the big business, the US liberal democracy might be well labeled an oligarchy (not unlike Russia today)

[Velasco]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/19/energy/germany-russia-gas-supplies-winter-intl/index.html

"Germany to fire up coal stations as Russia squeezes gas supply"

The Western Left faces many impossible trinities.  One of them with respect to energy policy is you can have a most 2 of the 3:

a) No Putin/MBS
b) No nuclear power
c) No local hydrocarbon energy

So the Western Left has to pick which one of the 3 to give up.

Well the "Western Left" has never been monolithically anti-nuclear power, and that is a trend I expect to see accelerate following recent events.

Neither the so-called energy transtion, nor the disconnection of nuclear power olants, are policies exclusive of the Western Left. Remember that Angela Merkel reversed the decision to extend the liferime of Germany's nuclear plants, whiler her coreligionist Ursula Von der Leyen calls for a "joint European action  for more affordable, secure and" sustainable energy" -- she claims accelerating the transition to "clean energies" will make Europe less reliant in fossil fuel imports --. I'm somewhat sceptical about the EU Green Deal (particularly about the hydrogen), but that's another question.


The announcement made by Robert Halbeck is a serious step back. Anyone who has seen the last IPCC "Code Red" report knows that global heating is an enemy worse than Putin. We are running completely out of time

As ror the boomerang effect of the sanctions in Europe,  well... next autumn will be tough. I don't want to imagine about Africa and other continents