...
The conference “A Vision of a United Europe: Shared Defense, Diplomacy, and Geopolitical Agency” was held in Kyiv on Sept. 18, bringing together Ukrainian and European politicians, diplomats, researchers and security experts to discuss Europe’s ability to respond to Russia’s war against Ukraine and growing geopolitical challenges.
A recurring message throughout the conference was that Europe cannot continue relying on assumptions that a major war is impossible on the continent.
...
Several speakers argued that Russia’s war in Ukraine should be viewed as part of a broader confrontation with the European security order, while others warned that Europe is already losing, or has nearly lost, the hybrid conflict being waged against it.
The conference is set to continue in Vienna from Oct. 2-4, when a Paneuropa Congress will take place. A draft Vienna Declaration has already been prepared and is expected to be presented after the two events.
...
Reinhard Kloucek, president of Paneuropa Austria, said a generation of European politicians had grown up believing that war was something that happened elsewhere rather than on the continent.
“That makes you lazy,” he said.
Kloucek argued that the international order is already changing and that Europe needs to become an independent geopolitical actor rather than remaining dependent on the US, China or Russia.
...
Kloucek also added that Ukraine is central to Europe’s ability to develop such a geopolitical role.
“The clear point is if we, as Europe, want to play a geo-political role, we need Ukraine,” he said, adding that Russia’s success in conquering Ukraine would demonstrate its ability to divide Europe despite the continent’s greater economic potential.
...
Valeriy Pekar, chairman of the board of the NGO Decolonization, offered one of the conference’s most detailed scenarios for how a wider European conflict could begin.
He argued that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 should not necessarily be viewed as the model for future Russian military action. Instead, he pointed to what he described as Russia’s concept of “liminal war” – a conflict designed to create uncertainty over whether and how an adversary should respond.
...
Pekar said a future confrontation could begin with a combination of missile and drone strikes, sabotage, cyberattacks, disinformation, political influence operations and covert activity, potentially without the immediate deployment of ground forces.
He used Poland as a hypothetical example, saying a combination of attacks and infrastructure disruption could create a refugee crisis and undermine European decision-making.
...
If history should have taught us anything, then that appeasement of imperialist fascist dictators doesn't work.
nah, it's fine. just one more country and he'll feel complete, i swear!
But where would Germany buy cheap gas from?
Look, I know this is the easy take on the story but I don't think many people understand the sheer gravity of what that "cheap" gas enabled Germany to do. Like it was close at a delivered €/MWh level to what nuclear was able to deliver, and without having to manage building more nuclear stations. Remembering that even the most positive forecasts of solar/batteries at the time didn't think we would get anywhere close to where we are now.
Was it worth it? ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOT
Can I understand why the politicians did it? COS THEY ARE GREEDY AND LINED THEIR OWN POCKETS TO KILL THE ECONOMY/WORLD
...buuuut! It was an easy sell as a win-win and arguably helped reach political stability and allow growth that might not be seen again for a long time ...BECAUSE WE ARE KILLING/KILLED THE PLANET WITH GAS AND OTHER FOSSILS.
They could just use nuclear you know... expect organization like Greenpeace, which I'm sure were well funded and controlled by Russia, convinced everyone that nuclear is bad. It was basically a double whammy by Russia: make people afraid of nuclear and sell cheap gas as the only alternative. German politicians simply got fooled twice. Well, some got fooled, others were simply bought.
I mean, no one really had a hard time convincing the world to shut down nuclear after Fukushima. The entire OPEC and beyond would have been thrilled with the opportunity to hamstring nuclear deployment.
But those times are over. Nuclear makes even less sense now, given its cost and time to build with solar, wind and batteries more or less ready to go. Just gotta build those local supply chains, partially deregulate and never need to build another ccgt plant again.
France didn't close them. Spain didn't close them. Many countries left them on. Germany got fooled. Twice.