Bay 12 Games Forum

The Commission wants to go all-in on a transition to more durable forms of electricity generation. Gas powered plants will be phased out, sustainable energy sources (including not only solar, water and wind but also hydrogen and nuclear power) need to be at least tripled by 2030.

Lets hope it is sustainable because some of that can get really expensive. While more solar and wind is great, as they have become so cost competitive in recent years that in some case they cost less than even operating existing fossil fuel power plants. However, one can't rely on intermittent energy alone, and new Nuclear power plants is the costliest method of production[1], and hydrogen is costlier than gas maybe even costlier than nuclear.

More importantly you will need to invest heavily in energy storage and upgrading your infrastructure. I haven't been following closely but it seem that EU has been investing heavily in that in recent years, however, it is unclear on what schedule and if it is enough. Planed HVDC interconnector and submarine power to Africa or Asia could allow to reduce cost in the long run. (btw the one of the proposed route to Asia goes through Georgia)

[1] i am going by USA data, could be different for EU due to economy of scale, though I doubt its by much, until now all the recent project I heard about went roughly like UKs highspeed train project :/

@anewaname, I don't believe Russia's claim holds water.

Territorial airspace in which countries exercise sovereignty is very limited, I believe its extension over the country landmass corresponds with the maritime definition of territorial waters which by the most permissive definition is no more than 50km.

Flight information regions (FIR), devised by the international civil aviation organization they areas of technical responsibility to provide flight information services for international aviation. While sometimes FIR correlate with territorial airspace where countries exercise sovereignty, they do not entail sovereignty over international airspace.

There are other things Russia could claim (like ADIZ) but overall it is no more than the usual attempt to muddy the water and distract from the act of using military force against a US drone in international airspace.

MQ-9 Reaper is one of the bigger drones, quick google put its price tag at 30million (roughly 3 Abraham tanks  or third of modern F15)

According to flight radar path posted online the incident indeed took place in international water in the middle of black sea. No where Russia could claim sovereignty like with British destroyer freedom of navigation near Crimea few years back.

For me Firefox was significantly better than IE, but soon after lighterweight Chrome took over for every day use

now days I doubt that any average user can tell the difference between the browsers, delphonso suggestions might be best for maxing battery use

edit: fixed bold.

Quote from: jipehog on March 13, 2023, 07:19:56 pm

Because USA deals with a lot of bad people. We all know that dictators are bad, except, well.. when they're kind of OK. Even terrorist have become statesman as their abhorrent ideas and actions are white washed.  On the world stage some times you have to work with bad people as the only way to affect positive change and or maintain your interests.

An argument can be made that perhaps one shouldn't. That this willingness to make deals with the devil to further your own cause is what's wrong with the world. When it happens on a small scale, one runs a risk of being branded corrupt or a collaborator. But if you're large enough, it's realpolitik.
The pragmatists will call this approach naive. Others may call it principled.

That depends on what your goal is. The way to affect change is to engage, as unsavory dealing with dictators might seem it opens doors of opportunity for further engagement, and eventually dialogue and cooperation foster change. Otherwise the alternative on the global stage is using military force, and we have seen how USA's well intentioned attempt to play global policeman went in the middle east.. Meanwhile, USA relative power is diminishing and authoritarianism is on the rise as more countries look elsewhere.

Principled approach as the unwavering adherence to some higher ideal is appealing in that it simple and easy to understand/sell to the public, unlike the pragmatic "zigzag", but the simple truth is that if you are not at the table you have no influence, worse you could be seceding the table to actors with bad influence, so as with most things in life its about find a balance between the two.

Quote

I am not sure that strongly worded condemnation from Hollywood is what is going to bring down a nuclear power, current within might.

Not it wouldn't. It has some modest effect on public opinion and it is a rather minor thing if taken in isolation. But I see a trend, a narrative that is harmful not only to my country but to the world.

Instead of saying "Russia is a deeply immoral society that needs some serious fixing." we are getting cartoonish "remove Putin('s regime) and all will be cool and good in no time!"

How does saying saying that "Russia is a deeply immoral society that needs some serious fixing" is beneficial to Ukraine or the world?

Otherwise we shouldn't look at it in isolation from other currents or Russia's status as nuclear power and its war that affect millions and kills tens of thousands every month with no indication its close to an end.

Quote from: bloop_bleep on March 13, 2023, 01:31:57 pm

Navalny is a step in the right direction. He is against the war, acknowledged Crimea is Ukrainian not too far back. If that is an opposition figure that is palatable to Russians then so be it.

In the end the question becomes whether you want to make things better or wring out some personal emotional satisfaction. Russian society needs guidance and time to reform.

He's full of shit. The swerve about Crimea is too little, too late, and too convenient. In the past he defended the Russianness of Crimea. He's also ludicrously racist against Georgians and defended the military intervention in Georgia. He's really pretty bad

If he could end the war and pull Russia out of Ukraine completely. Do you think it would matter?

Because USA deals with a lot of bad people. We all know that dictators are bad, except, well.. when they're kind of OK. Even terrorist have become statesman as their abhorrent ideas and actions are white washed.  On the world stage some times you have to work with bad people as the only way to affect positive change and or maintain your interests.

Quote

At this point the goal is to undermine Putin support, once people stop dying we can worry about being pedantics, and separating the regime from the people is a simple way to give some an alternative and avoid getting others backs up

It is like saying in the midst of WW2: At this point, the goal is to undermine Hitler's  support.
What good will it do if Putin will be replaced by someone more competent if Russia will retain the same ideology? They'll try again in a few years or decades.

I am not sure that strongly worded condemnation from Hollywood is what is going to bring down a nuclear power, current within might.
So far sanctions had lackluster effect and Russia is keep gearing up for the long war.

Quote

Conversely this is exactly the opposite of Putin narrative, who from the start tried to paint his invasion as global affair i.e. Russian's war, Russian Mir, east vs west, religious western moral decadents etc.

But this is the truth. This is the war of Russia vs the West. It is an attempt to spread Russian Mir. The only thing Putin is lying about here is who actually desires this war.

I am talking about Russian propaganda trying to increase public support by presenting Putins attempt to make imperialisms great again as defensive war of no choice waged against all Russians (common tactic e.g. Erdogan does this with muslims) and shared history values narratives against to bring former glory back against his liberal gay elite satanist. But yes you could say that the latest installment in Putin's campaign to preserve his regime, end American hegemony, and reinstate Russia as a global power has failed to meet its objectives and devolved to a global conflict.

BTW, in most cases bullying happens not for merely being Russians but for openly supporting Russia and its genocidal war. Russian diaspora all over the world is extremely pro-war.

Maybe, but I can tell you that bulling kids that didn't know that Russia exist, certainly increased sentiments not in support of Russia but against the west.

Well, I am very annoyed by the Oscar given to the documentary film about Navalny (and this award has nothing to do with the quality of the documentary). It is normalization of Russian crimes. Presenting Russians in the light of poor people under the heel of an evil dictator.

It is not necessarily wrong. There are a lot of people in Russia who don't support Putin, who knew his narrative are pure BS from day one, and were helpless todo anything but watch as their whole lives go down the drain. Ever been in inevitable car accident, like where you stand in jam watching in the rear mirror as some idiot getting closer and closer and closer.. only its your life..

Regardless it is smart politics. At this point the goal is to undermine Putin support, once people stop dying we can worry about being pedantics, and separating the regime from the people is a simple way to give some an alternative and avoid getting others backs up. Conversely this is exactly the opposite of Putin narrative, who from the start tried to paint his invasion as more inclusive global struggle i.e. Russian's war, Russian Mir, east vs west, religious western moral decadents etc.

Also keep in mind the vagueness of the term Russian, which refers to both those living in Russia and ethnic group of the East Slavic peoples in general. When the war broke out it led to many anti Russian sentiments, consequently there were example kids of immigrants from USSR, who spoke Russian but were born outside of Russia who had their kids picked on at school because they are Russians.

If the city falls (and remember that it has been falling Any Day Now for more than six months), the forces in the city are very likely fully prepared to defend their homes a little further to the east.

The question is how far back.. It's not just a matter of digging some trenches, there is a line to maintain, question of logistics, finding good natural or otherwise barriers that set the odds in our favor.

if it follows previous patterns it is very likely that significant chunks of territory will be liberated

Very unlikely that it will, but I am hopping for a new rabbit.