Greta Thunberg says it would be "a mistake" for Germany to switch off its nuclear power plants if that means the country must burn more climate-wrecking coal.

The German government is still debating the future of its nuclear plants, long set to be shut down this year, given the spectre of a looming energy crisis due to the war in Ukraine.

The climate activist told German public broadcaster ARD that it was “a very bad idea to focus on coal when this [nuclear power] is already in place.”

But she acknowledged in the interview, aired today, that there was a strong debate over the issue in Germany.

Asked whether it would be better for the planet if Germany keeps its three remaining nuclear plants going, Thunberg responded: “If we have them already running, I feel that it’s a mistake to close them down in order to focus on coal.”

Pressed by programme host Sandra Maischberger on whether she thought the nuclear plants should be closed down as soon as possible after the current energy crunch passes, Thunberg said “it depends. We don’t know what will happen after this."

The 19-year-old's comments come as Germany's three-party governing coalition argues over the possibility of suspending the country's nuclear phaseout.

Visualizing it, these talks (say in Istanbul) — Olivier5

Speaking of which....


Kremlin expects Erdogan to offer Putin mediation on Ukraine on Thursday
By Le Figaro with AFP

Turkey, very dependent on Russian gas and oil, has been trying since the Russian offensive of February 24 to maintain good relationship with both Ukraine and Russia.

The Kremlin said on Wednesday 12 October that it expects Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to make a concrete proposal to Vladimir Putin to mediate on the conflict in Ukraine, while the two men will meet on Thursday in Kazakhstan.

https://www.lefigaro.fr/international/le-kremlin-s-attend-a-ce-qu-erdogan-propose-jeudi-a-poutine-une-mediation-sur-l-ukraine-20221012

That’d be fine with me. Odds are rather slim, unfortunately — Xtrix

Now, yes. Never say never though.

At present, even if one could get some talks underway, they wouldn't lead to much progress, I think. At this stage it would be about opening a channel for future meaningful talks, not yet about using this channel for meaningful peace talks.

Diplomacy is slow.

Visualizing it, these talks (say in Istanbul) could start by the negotiators arguing for a month or so about the agenda and process issues, a time they would use to get to know the other team, their weaknesses, etc. Then, in another months or two they would review in detail the extent of their differences, take the full measure of the gap separating the two teams' positions. Then, realizing the challenge ahead in closing the gap, would come a period during which "confidence building measures" would be discussed. That is to say, not yet peace talks but talks about what behavior change from any of the parties could be agreeable and may improve the chances that the parties engage in meaningfull peace talks...

Etc. etc.

Better start sooner than later, then. But don't expect miracles.

Consider China's interests, particularly their eye being on Taiwan. If Putin succeeds in annexing a good deal of Ukraine through force, that creates a precedent that China could use to invade Taiwan. This means China may be more interested in Russia fighting on, than in Russia backing off of Ukraine.

Certainly, China could press (independently from the US) for negotiations if they thought it useful, yes. But we were discussing the role of the US in pushing for negotiations. The US can't coordinate much with China these days, certainly not on this issue.

How about China? — frank

Too much aligned with Moscow, I think.

It may very well be true that the US should just stay out of the way altogether. I would prefer to see them push for negotiations, quietly or otherwise. If done in good faith, I don't think their involvement would be a dealbreaker. — Xtrix

I think the last thing anyone on the side of Ukraine wants, is to weaken their negotiating position. The US openly pushing for negotiations could be interpreted by Russia as a sign of weakness. Instead, the US could discreetly ask Turkey or the UN to do it.

The administration could still throw its weight behind negotiations. — Xtrix

Or rather, let others do it, and quietly encourage them. Russians fear the US the most, and there's value in that. If the US was seen as pushing for negotiations, it would weaken Ukraine's hand in those negotiations.

Vladimir Putin on the edge of a precipice, with a nuclear warhead around his neck. This is how Wprost depicts the Russian president in its latest issue dated October 10. In its editorial, the Polish weekly believes that the Russian president is engaging in a nuclear bluff that has no chance of success.

So while it’s easy to understand, it’s not easy to accept — at least for me. I think the US is making a terrible and potentially fatal mistake. To roll the dice like this is, again, madness. — Xtrix

Biden is wakening to the risk that Putin goes nuclear, so there's some progress there. But what you are talking about -- keep diplomacy alive in spite of everything -- is a job for Europeans, or Turks. Biden would have no credibility in that role.

The justification for not doing so — that Putin is a war criminal, that a guarantee on not joining NATO is unacceptable, etc. — is less than unconvincing, in my view. — Xtrix

I would think that after Bucha and all the other crime scenes, it's easy to understand why the Ukrainians would want revenge and wouldn't be interested in diplomacy.

On the US side, they have the Red Army right where they want it: in a trap. It is also easy to understand why they don't press for diplomacy.

By KAZANEVSKY (Ukraine), Cartooning for Peace.

I now read them. I agree that in May, the US admin was getting giddy about the prospect of a proxy war, and this is I think exactly when I wrote against this giddiness. Still, I didn't know that Johnson had (alledgedly) this effect on Zelensky.

Please do post / repost anything you have. I'm genuinely interested.

It appears that they are, yes. Is it easily “verified”? No— because the meetings occur behind closed doors and we’re left only with accounts given by officials who are present and who corroborate the charge — Xtrix

I'd love to have access to those accounts.

Appeals to the historical record are moot, in the circumstances. Whatever Johnson or Nixon did is itrelevant.

So what is your stance exactly? That the US is neutral regarding negotiations? — Xtrix

My hunch is that Biden ir his admin needs to focus on the end game now. Even sooner. I have in fact written about that already months ago, arguing that Biden should keep an eye on the diplomatic track, and encourage its continuation even if it doesn't work right now. Keep some channels open somewhere. Macron tried to do that, at too high a level perhaps. It was very a personal brand of diplomacy, all these phone calls with Putin. But the idea was not a bad one.

It doesn't need to be done by the US. Europe is suffering far more than the US from the consequences of the war. Draghi understood that. Other European leaders too. They could well play a card here, the good cop card. The bad cop being the US obviously...

That could lead to something. Or it could fail. Best we can do is try at least. — Manuel

If enough people try enough time, it will "lead to something" often enough, e.g. political education of people attending the thread. But still, TPF is not some hotbed of popular columnists, smarty-pant politicians and grey eminences, me think, so whatever it leads to will remain quite local...

The evidence isn’t easily verifiable. — Xtrix

I thought as much. So one cannot say that the US is evidently blocking negotiations. It is not. I grant you that the US is not encouraging negotiations either.

Let's face it: the Ukrainians are not really interested at this point, and nor are the Russians. They might posture about peace talks, argue this or that way for propaganda reason. I.e. they might use the concept of peace talks in their fight against one another, but they are not ready to negotiate a peace. So what would happen if Biden or anyone else would try and "force" Ukraine to initiate peace negotiations? Only more posturing.

I genuinely do not understand at all, how condemning Russia helps in any way, to resolve this conflict. — Manuel

Nothing posted here will ever "help resolve this conflict". This is too high an expectation to hold. What we can do here is learn new information from each other, and once in a long while, influence each other, by sharing arguments and information. To do this well, I think it's useful to know where we all stand in the big picture, and what each of us believes in, whence we speak, so that we can all interpret what posters say within the broader context of the conversation.

It's irrelevant. You are still not an American citizen.

The US are our allies and we tend to follow their lead unless their moves are seen as very unpopular. — Isaac

Still, it's not your government, so you have no "duty to hold Biden to account", not anymore than you have a duty to hold Putin to account.

By blocking negotiations. — Xtrix

You have something more specific that this? Like, verifiable? When and how did this happen? Otherwise, there's nothing to discuss.

Go is actually Japanese. The Chinese are more found of Majong.

Blocking or discouraging peace agreements and negotiations is pushing for war. — Xtrix

Okay, so Putin is pushing for war and Biden is not. Exactly what I was saying!

Some people here are unable to discuss anything. They get all angry as soon as the slightest disagreement occurs. And that's okay.

Of course the US wants to weaken Russia. Who doesn't? But it does not follow that the US is pushing for war. The only ones who pushed for war are Russian.

Call that naive if you need to. It's just the truth.

Let's say the US support is more diversified, but in terms of armor, Russia's abandoned tanks and carriers did 'give' to Ukraine more than all western nations combined.

we have duty to hold our governments to account. — Isaac

I regret to inform that your government is not in Washington but in London.

So you are trying to influence the US foreign policy by posting your condescending mind farts over the interwebs? Good luck with that.

Russia is the largest weapon provider to Ukraine right now.
— Olivier5

So no sources then. — Isaac

Here you go:

https://elpais.com/internacional/2022-10-07/rusia-se-convierte-en-el-principal-suministrador-involuntario-de-armas-para-ucrania.html

when it comes to those making the exact same argument about the uselessness of condemning Russia you become the solidarity-proclaiming keyboard warrior, when exactly the same is expressed against the US you become the hard-nosed pragmatist. You must get dizzy sometimes? — Isaac

It is not useless to condemn Russia on TPF. It has certain advantages, for instance in informing, pleasing or offending other TPF members. But it will NOT influence Russia. Likewise, you can usefully talk of the US foreign policy on TPF, if the 'use' you aim for is information exchange and/or debate with other TPFers. But it won't affect the US foreign policy at all.

It's like anything, e.g. quantum mechanics. Discussing QM on this site is kinda fun and you can't say it's useless. But I don't expect such discussions to have an effect on QM.

Google it up. Russia is the largest weapon provider to Ukraine right now.

The UN charter condemn aggression, posits that any member state has the right to defend itself, and to seek alliances in doing so.

Is he kept in an isolation chamber from the day of the election lest he makes any decision under influence from what he sees and reads about the mood of the general public? — Isaac

Pretty much, yes. The. US public has very little influence on FP. This is just a fact. It's not me saying it, nor do I condone it. You cannot influence US foreign policy simply by expressing views on TPF. You would need a whole lobbying apparatus to achieve anything like this, like the one developed by Israel.

The only public action with an impact on USFP is to vote to change the president.

politics only happens one day in every four years. — Isaac

FYI, US foreign policy is set by the president, who is elected every four years.

LOL. You managed to misunderstand even your own quote. Now that's funny.

Your source for that? — Isaac

News.

One country's sovereignty over an area is not a legitimate foreign policy objective. — Isaac

You mean the UN charter got it all wring?

you have to show that Russian control over Donbas will be worse than Ukrainian control — Isaac

That is precisely what your quote implied, though. Go back and read it more carefully, because it seems you failed to understand it.

It does appear so. I don’t see how Ukraine could have come this far without US backing. — Xtrix

It couldn't. Which does not mean that they will stop without further US support, since by now Russia is the largest purveyor of weapons to Ukraine.

So I’m not happy about it. I’m not happy about pushing for continued war without equally pushing for peace negotiations — Xtrix

The US is not pushing for war but helping Ukraine defend herself, which is perfectly legitimate. And I am afraid that there isn't much you can do about it, other than vote for Trump at the next general elections.

Or, we could grow up and stop pretending that arbitrary lines around bits of the world have any meaning whatsoever about the unity of the people in them. It's your kind of nationalist bullshit that causes these problems — Isaac

It's certainly not MY kind of BS. It's what exists. It's the reality we have to deal with. As much as I love John Lennon's imagination, nations are not going to disappear tomorrow.

Even your quotes testify that Russia's occupation is detrimental to human rights ...
— Olivier5

So? — Isaac

So to repel the Russian occupation is likely conducive to improved human rights in Ukraine...

Because I live in the US, I’m biased towards learning about its present contributions. But I would be equally biased if I lived in Mozambique regarding its policies. — Xtrix

You would be glad to learn that its present contribution to the defense of Ukraine is quite significant and effective. Specifically the HIMARs, as well as the intell they provide. The Biden administration seems to be on the ball.

This is all fairly obvious. So what’s the problem? — Xtrix

The problem could be that analysing the past - even if we were to agree about a diagnostic - says little about what must be done in the future. Arguing over whose fault it is, won't solve this conflict.

It's like citing a revolution in Scotland as evidence of England's pro-scottish tendency. — Isaac

No, it's like saying Ukraine chose Western values over submission to a dictatorship. The Russians have yet to do this.

The crackdown on dissent and human rights defenders in occupied Crimea continued.

Even your quotes testify that Russia's occupation is detrimental to human rights ...

Yep. Well done, you've reached the conclusion that anyone with a reading age over five reached. — Isaac

I was just stating the obvious, though you deserve credit for acknowledging it.

Similar protests take place in Russia. — Isaac

But they did not succeed in toppling the regime. In contrast, the euromaidan and revolution of dignity did succeed.

I've provided three reports from the world's leading human rights groups detailing the situation in Eastern Ukraine and their assessment is that the abuses by both sides are not noticeably different. — Isaac

That was before the war, before Zelensky even. But Russia is going down into absolute autocracy, all the while Ukraine's evolution is positive.

So I'd need some fairly compelling evidence to the contrary if we're to justify 600 deaths a day as being a worthwhile sacrifice for keeping the disputed territory in the control of this 'West-leaning' government. So far no one's provided anything but wishful thinking.

So Russia should never had started this war, because by the same logic, it isn't a worthwhile sacrifice for keeping the disputed territory in the control of Russia either.

Human rights are political.

The protesters opposed what they saw as widespread government corruption, the influence of oligarchs,[85] abuse of power, and violation of human rights in Ukraine.[86]

(wiki)