News War with Russia

[Scouse]

No idea if true, but:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=cIL27AoTTAU

 

[Wij]

So, if you're Pro-Russia, you should get labled as "state media"? Quick google shows that Sputnik is produced by American media org - Associated Press. But to be fair, maybe they should just label him "cunt"

Sputnik is owned by the Russian State and explicitly has promoting the state's interests in its mission statement. It's propaganda for foreign audiences.

 

[BloodOmen]

No idea if true, but:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=cIL27AoTTAU

Dinna like, that looks staged to me... you wouldn't put mines where people can see them, defeats the purpose of them.

 

[Wij]

And as well as being paid by the Russian state Galloway explicitly and consistently pushes the talking points that the Russian state wants pushed. He walks and quacks like a duck because he's a duck. The thing about being an agent for a foreign power is you rarely sign a contract saying "I hereby declare myself an agent of a foreign power."

 

[Scouse]

Sputnik is owned by the Russian State and explicitly has promoting the state's interests in its mission statement. It's propaganda for foreign audiences.

So American-owned Associated Press pump out not just alternative viewpoint - but Anti-American programming? Interesting concept.

Meh. Doesn't matter really. This is kind of interesting - but what I find most interesting is this line:

RT America, You Were Very Weird and Bad

The Russia-funded news network staffed by American journalists shut down this month. What was it even trying to do?

www.theatlantic.com

At this point, you’ll just have to take my word for it.

RT is undoubtedly a propaganda outlet (the Beeb is too** - and we fund our own propaganda) - but it doesn't mean cuntybollocks is a propagandist. He's just a quack. A misguided quack.





**yes it is. Regardless of "how bad" the propaganda is - it's not ever going to carry an anti-Brit narrative is it. (But I don't really care)

 

[Raven]

Claiming that the atrocities being carried out by Russian soldiers are fake is not "an alternative viewpoint"

The BBC is actually pretty impartial, and does report on British indiscretions, all the time.

 

[Gwadien]

No idea if true, but:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=cIL27AoTTAU

They're mines from the 1960s; they take the weight of a tank to set them off.

 

[Raven]

View: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-61015010


Bell-end.

 

[Scouse]

He came on TV and agreed to be interviewed. What makes him a bellend?

Now - George Galloway. He's a bellend. But even bellends can be right some times. Mr Galloway was very clear in reporting that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam had no ties to al quaeda and that we were being lied to to justify our illegal invasion - one that ended up with at least half a million dead who otherwise wouldn't have been and subsequent raging of ISIS across the middle east.

This is why I can't bring myself to look at Russians (or any humans) and think "fuck 'em" - or "bell end". Because all of us are dependent on third hand information.

 

[Wij]

He came on TV and agreed to be interviewed. What makes him a bellend?

Now - George Galloway. He's a bellend. But even bellends can be right some times. Mr Galloway was very clear in reporting that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam had no ties to al quaeda and that we were being lied to to justify our illegal invasion - one that ended up with at least half a million dead who otherwise wouldn't have been and subsequent raging of ISIS across the middle east.

This is why I can't bring myself to look at Russians (or any humans) and think "fuck 'em" - or "bell end". Because all of us are dependent on third hand information.

He denies Russian and Assad’s atrocities in Syria. Telling the truth is something he only happens to do by coincidence if it suits his patrons.

 

[Wij]

Lol:


View: https://twitter.com/RVAwonk/status/1511781926365020172

 

[BloodOmen]

I think he's an annoying twat, always have done but he's not wrong.


View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1511667812137377804

 

[ECA]

He came on TV and agreed to be interviewed. What makes him a bellend?

His entire life is built on wealth stolen from his own countrymen.
He should shut the fuck up whilst grown folk is talkin.

 

[Ormorof]

How is it legal for them to publish his name if he hasnt been found guilty yet? British embassy guard charged with spying for Russia

 

[Raven]

How is it legal for them to publish his name if he hasnt been found guilty yet? British embassy guard charged with spying for Russia

You can be named once charged, unless a judge overrules it in the case of special circumstances.

 

[Wij]

It's just indicative. If transport is higher now (which is likely) then a WFH edict could have more importance, no?

35bn paid to Russia since the invasion started. We've done dick, really. Apart from ensure that Russia's nose has been bloodied in the hope that they'll think twice about doing it elsewhere (at the cost of lives).

But we've done nothing that would even mildly inconvenience Western publics. Life is carrying on as normal. The 'leccy bills more expensive, but that's about it.

We've ruled out military intervention (correctly). But is the west going to do anything else that actually matters?

I mean, other than just being really angry on twitter?

Primarily, I blame Germany.


View: https://twitter.com/mark_lynas/status/1511957481106419714

 

[Scouse]

Primarily, I blame Germany.

It's a rational decision to turn off nuclear - it's hugely expensive and although low risk you cannot eliminate the catastrophic consequences of failure and crucially we don't know what to do with the waste. Personally, I'd have phased out nuclear as it would have reduced the risk position over time - especially given carbon issues and the ability to ramp up (cheaper safer) alternatives.

Most countries are refusing nuclear for these very sensible reasons. The sums just don't add up and we're an outlier.

To be clear though - if all their nuclear plants were still running they'd STILL be buying gas and oil off Russia. So you can "blame germany" all you like - but it's a fallacious argument to state that if they had their nuclear running they'd be in a better position. Nothing material would change.

 

[Wij]

It's a rational decision to turn off nuclear - it's hugely expensive and although low risk you cannot eliminate the catastrophic consequences of failure and crucially we don't know what to do with the waste. Personally, I'd have phased out nuclear as it would have reduced the risk position over time - especially given carbon issues and the ability to ramp up (cheaper safer) alternatives.

Most countries are refusing nuclear for these very sensible reasons. The sums just don't add up and we're an outlier.

To be clear though - if all their nuclear plants were still running they'd STILL be buying gas and oil off Russia. So you can "blame germany" all you like - but it's a fallacious argument to state that if they had their nuclear running they'd be in a better position. Nothing material would change.

They would obviously be in a better position. It would reduce the need for Gas can Coal even if it didn't eliminate it.

 

[Scouse]

They would obviously be in a better position. It would reduce the need for Gas can Coal even if it didn't eliminate it.

Fukushima was March 2011 - at which time Germany was about 18% nuclear. They're now about 12% nuclear.

I know that ideologically you like to stroke nuclear's dick - but for this it would make fuck all difference.

 

[Wij]

Fukushima was March 2011 - at which time Germany was about 18% nuclear. They're now about 12% nuclear.

I know that ideologically you like to stroke nuclear's dick - but for this it would make fuck all difference.

How can it make fuck all difference when it plainly makes a difference?

 

[Scouse]

How can it make fuck all difference when it plainly makes a difference?

5/6% difference is no material difference. This is so obvious as to be self-evident. You have to be blinkered to still be arguing this point.

There would be no material change to Germany's situation if they had 5% more 'leccy from nuclear. They'd still by buying coal, oil and gas from Russia. Period.

In fact - I'd go further than that - they're in a better position regarding dependence on Russia than they were since they started shutting down their nuclear post Fukushima in 2011. This is because renewables - expecially wind - have come on line much faster than they've been shutting down nuclear. Since 2011:

-5% nuclear
+20% renewables

This is one of the great things about renewables - they're cheap and they don't take fucking decades to bring online. Nuclear is a fucking big expensive white elephant when it comes to decarbonisation at pace - because it can't do the pace.

Either way - stop harping on about Germany being in the shit because they shut down nuclear - it's palpably not true.

 

[Raven]

So 5% is fuck all then?

 

[dysfunction]

It's a rational decision to turn off nuclear - it's hugely expensive and although low risk you cannot eliminate the catastrophic consequences of failure and crucially we don't know what to do with the waste. Personally, I'd have phased out nuclear as it would have reduced the risk position over time - especially given carbon issues and the ability to ramp up (cheaper safer) alternatives.

Most countries are refusing nuclear for these very sensible reasons. The sums just don't add up and we're an outlier.

To be clear though - if all their nuclear plants were still running they'd STILL be buying gas and oil off Russia. So you can "blame germany" all you like - but it's a fallacious argument to state that if they had their nuclear running they'd be in a better position. Nothing material would change.

Go go nuclear

Energy strategy: UK plans eight new nuclear reactors to boost production

The government wants to boost UK energy production and independence as household bills soar.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Scouse]

Go go nuclear

Yep. It's plain insanity from Johnson - it's expensive and they're going approve one a year until 2030.

Approve! With a 15-year lead time we'll be bringing the last one online about 2045 (at HUGE expense).

Meanwhile - the IPCC has just given us a solution to halving emissions by 2030 - as we're currently on target to shooting past a catastrophic 3 degrees and in the last-chance saloon. Lets face it - our Tory government is a climate denier government. And Nuclear has no place at all in helping us hit that halving by 2030 target - because it'll come a decade too late (and massively over budget).

And none of this helps with Ukraine.

 

[dysfunction]

And none of this helps with Ukraine.

Nope but as Ukraine say "we need weapons, weapons and weapons".
So we can certainly do that!

 

[Scouse]

Nope but as Ukraine say "we need weapons, weapons and weapons".
So we can certainly do that!

Yep. At least it's clearing out Europe's old weapon stocks. There's good money to be made in Blighty by filling the vaccume that is being created by selling shiny new weapons to NATO members.

 

[Bodhi]

5/6% difference is no material difference. This is so obvious as to be self-evident. You have to be blinkered to still be arguing this point.

There would be no material change to Germany's situation if they had 5% more 'leccy from nuclear. They'd still by buying coal, oil and gas from Russia. Period.

In fact - I'd go further than that - they're in a better position regarding dependence on Russia than they were since they started shutting down their nuclear post Fukushima in 2011. This is because renewables - expecially wind - have come on line much faster than they've been shutting down nuclear. Since 2011:

-5% nuclear
+20% renewables

This is one of the great things about renewables - they're cheap and they don't take fucking decades to bring online. Nuclear is a fucking big expensive white elephant when it comes to decarbonisation at pace - because it can't do the pace.

Either way - stop harping on about Germany being in the shit because they shut down nuclear - it's palpably not true.

Ah bless. Renewables may be quick to bring online, but you know the really awesome thing about nuclear (and fossil fuels for that matter)? It generates no matter what the weather is doing.

Hence why you don't have to mirror nuclear capacity with gas for when the wind doesn't blow. It also doesn't require creative accounting to suggest "look it's cheap innit".

I'll await your "but muh batteries" comment.

 

[Bodhi]

And as well as being paid by the Russian state Galloway explicitly and consistently pushes the talking points that the Russian state wants pushed. He walks and quacks like a duck because he's a duck. The thing about being an agent for a foreign power is you rarely sign a contract saying "I hereby declare myself an agent of a foreign power."

He's more of a pussy cat tbh.

 

[Scouse]

Ah bless. Renewables may be quick to bring online, but you know the really awesome thing about nuclear (and fossil fuels for that matter)? It generates no matter what the weather is doing.

Doesn't generate dick if it's not actually been built for the next 20-25 years.

We need emissions to peak by 2025 - so 2.5 years - and then drop by nearly 50% by 2030.

Nuclear isn't even part of the conversation.

 

[Wij]

Doesn't generate dick if it's not actually been built for the next 20-25 years.

We need emissions to peak by 2025 - so 2.5 years - and then drop by nearly 50% by 2030.

Nuclear isn't even part of the conversation.

If it's already generating and you choose not to shut it down then the delay is 0.