In what ways has nuclear energy failed Germany that don't stem from small scale and lack of investment?

Also, framing it as if Germany policy had not been also ... "influenced" by Russia's long-term strategy would be quite naive.

Why does everyone attribute to deception what could just as easily be attributed to this relationship being beneficial for Germany (and a lot of other EU countries which are conveniently omitted from this discussion)?

Energy is at the core of economic development and Germany and a bunch of other countries were able to get gas for decades.

"could just as easily be attributed to this relationship being beneficial for Germany"

There is no single concience called Germany that may definitively answer the question of whether it benefits them.

As is often the case, people benefetting from this relationship are not the ones paying the price when something goes wrong.

For every 1 billion of economic benefit produced by this relationship, this war has destroyed 5.

most lukely, without this relationship, the qar would not be possible.

The fact that it persisted for decades and increased in capacity is proof that it benefited Germany and the other European countries.

And you’ve noticed yourself that the benefits accrued in the EU and the costs were incurred in Ukraine. But this is oversimplifying things - the Ukraine war has other important geopolitical facets besides the admittedly important energy aspect, such as NATO expansion.

Do you the famous (and maybe fake) quote 'The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them' ?

It's the same here, but with selling energy to "capitalists".

What Europeans might have seen as purely economic affair for the USSR / Russia was just means of getting money to grow and support its army, to buy Western politicians and media influence, etc.

Theoretically you’re right.

Practically you’re not though, because as history attests, the USSR dissolved peacefully and thorough all the ups and downs the economic relationship survived.

This is perhaps why the warnings from the US were ignored for so long: they were based on self-interest and they had a track record of being wrong for decades.

It was not peacefully. Rather without large scale war. Some people got killed: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_Events_(Lithuania)

Germany is just the b*tch of the USA though, that becomes very clear in this press conference. Germany has nothing to say over Nordstream: https://youtu.be/OS4O8rGRLf8?t=74

'US Senate approves Nord Stream 2 Russia-Germany pipeline sanctions | The move by US lawmakers is part of a push to counter Russian influence in Europe, but European [i.e., German] lawmakers have said the US should mind its own business.' 2019 December 17 https://www.dw.com/en/us-senate-approves-nord-stream-2-russi...

'Why Germany pipes down when talk turns to Nord Stream 2 sanctions | Chancellor Olaf Scholz won’t say pipeline is finished if Russia attacks Ukraine, despite strong pressure from allies.' 2022 February 8 https://www.politico.eu/article/olaf-scholz-silence-on-nord-...

I think it's a mistake to see that as one sided. Bringing Russia closer to Europe and (according to the now falsified theory) creating conditions for peace while also getting cheap energy has been a goal of plenty of European elites.

> Bringing Russia closer to Europe and (according to the now falsified theory) creating conditions for peace

It's not falsified. It may have improved conditions for peace; the situation could have been far worse now. Real-world issues don't work out neatly; they are extremely complex; you never know what the alternative outcome would have been.

As an analogy, eating healthy food and getting exercise isn't 'falsified' as health recommendations when someone happens to die young.

Yeah, definitely. I meant the position that it would be sufficient or decreased the probability much more than it could have (and did.) I'm actually of the opinion that it was the right thing to do and really we didn't do enough connecting the economies, bridging the cultures and elites and that's why we ended up in this situation. On the other hand, we probably shouldn't have gone that far in on gas without having done the rest of that and seeing actual results. If the long-term costs were accounted for, I think green was actually cheaper all along.

Elites who have been compensated handsomely by the Kremlin. "Useful idiots" comes to mind.

I'm puzzled about why nuclear is deemed less satisfactory than dependence on Putin's Russia for the energy requirements of the world's 4th biggest economy.

Dependence on the Soviet Union and later Russia worked for 50 years.

This partnership, which was being undermined by the US from the beginning, is attributed to establishing a basis for cooperation between the Soviet Union and Western Europe. Considering that the Soviets pulled out peacefully of Eastern Germany, that worked pretty great.

This is incredibly short-sighted. Soviets pulling out of Eastern Germany, the collapse of the GDR, the Warsaw Pact, the USSR has very little to do with the energy imports. One might even argue that the USSR would collapse economically even earlier if not for all the currency it got from oil and gas sales.

Having a relationship based on mutually beneficial economic exchanges is an important reason why one would treat their economic partner nicely. It’s perhaps not the reason, but it is a reason.

Given how peacefully it collapsed and the huge potential for mayhem, I’d stay away from altering the timeline.

We have no idea what the alternate histories would look like. We can guess - yours is a reasonable guess - but it is all guesses. I can come up with reasons thing would things went far worse, and if you think a little you should be able to as well - they may be somewhat unlikely, but that is all the more we can say.

What we do know is where we are today: Russia is not playing nice with the world despite our attempts to have beneficial economic exchanges. Would the not play nice with USSR scenarios be worse - we have no real idea.

Yes, please give the Soviets due credit for how well they treated the Eastern Bloc countries. The Czechs and Slovaks, along with the Hungarians might like a word with you, to point out a few extreme examples. Same with the rest of the Bloc countries that had to cope with decades of repression.

> dependence on Putin's Russia

First, it's Russia, not Putin's Russia. It's derogatory to frame discussion like that. Should we also start putting "Biden's USA" and "Macron's France"? Just writing this way, and suddenly both USA and France appear like some fourth world banana republics.

Second, both Russia and Soviet Union before were the most reliable energy partner. They didn't fail their obligations a single time.

Reduction in Russian gas should be blamed on NATO sanctions that prevented a timely maintenance of North Stream 1 by confiscation of the gas turbine, and the refusal to start using North Stream 2 although it is ready to deliver gas tomorrow, if Germany decides so.

Putin's power in Russia is a lot more absolute than Biden's in the US or Macron's in France. And especially with his war against Ukraine and general hatred of democracy, Putin is relevant. The EU would have had less problems buying gas from Yeltsin's Russia. In fact, that's how we got into this situation; Russia was supposed to be on the road to becoming a normal, open democracy. And then Putin changed course.

Demonizing an enemy by personalisation and reduction to one evil dictator is a known propaganda / manipulation technique.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonizing_the_enemy#Personifi...

This has always been a standard operation model for the US:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_operations_(Unit...

So yes, Putin's Russia is used intentionally to introduce the same feeling as Hitler's Germany. That's the way how Biden's USA works, supported by Ursula von der Layens EU, Stoltenberg's NATO and their minions.

You might have a point if any of the other people you mention had maintained unchallenged political power for 2 decades by the expedient of murdering their political rivals.

I am just pointing out that if you use these terms, it frames the whole country in a negative sense.

Would Bush's USA, Clinton's USA, Nixon's USA, Obama's USA or POTUS X' USA work better? Because each one of the US presidents except Trump and Biden (give him some more time) is directly or indirectly responsible for more killing around the world than Putin would ever be. Hundreds of thousands (in case of some presidents even millions) people have been murdered on their direct command. Even if "Putin's Russia" is really responsible for everything that US / NATO propaganda accuses them, they still have a long way to go to reach this levels of atrocities and destruction.

It emphasises the negative effect Putin has on the country. And he does. He's plunging the country and the world into an unnecessary war just to feed his pride, and he does so in a clear break from his predecessor. Putin's Russia is significantly different from Yeltsin's Russia that it's worth pointing out the difference, especially since that difference is all him.

And while you could certainly argue that for example Bush plunged his country into an unnecessary war to feed his pride, you're arguing that he's not that much of a break from his predecessors. And the American people as a whole definitely carry more of that responsibility. That's still a reason to call out Putin specifically, instead of the country as a whole.

But Putin does have dictator level control...

It's Putin's Russia because Russia does what Putin wants.

Biden wants a lot of things for America but both the legislature and the courts are stopping that. So in that sense it is America's America.

It's done mostly out of compassion with the average Russians who have no say in the matter. I think it's important to remind people that it's specifically Putin who wants this war, and that most Russians don't. Just like we try not to blame the average German for Hitler's mad aggression.

As many people have pointed out, comparisons to Hitler's conquests at the start of WW2 are not unjustified; Putin is using much of the same rhetoric that Hitler used. His state media is actively discussing the need for genocide. Those "same feelings as Hitler's Germany" are because the facts are far too similar.

> Putin who wants this war, and that most Russians don't.

I don't think we have enough data to say this confidently. Putin enjoys a very broad base of support

Because he controls the media. There have also been very persistent protests against the war. Russians in a position to speak freely often criticise it. That's not true for the majority of Russians, however.

People, including elites in Putin’s inner circle, perceived as insufficiently loyal to Putin have experienced a rash of widely reported “murder-suicides” of their entire families, and others who have avoided that fate have experienced, other very public, severe adverse consequences.

This, along with Russia’s notoriously pervasive secret police and domestic surveillance may have something to do why even “anonymous” polling of Russia finds fairly small numbers of people willing to say they don't support the regime wholeheartedly, independent of actual sentiment.

> Second, both Russia and Soviet Union before were the most reliable energy partner. They didn't fail their obligations a single time.

Sorry, this is bollocks. For more than 30 years Russia is using energy supplies as a weapon against pretty much all the eastern and central Europe.

Can you give one single example when it was Russia's guilt for not delivering gas?

The only time when we had issue with gas it was some ten years ago when Ukraine stopped the transit hoping to blackmail both Russia and the EU to get a better deal for themselves. Ukraine was a failed state then that couldn't pay for gas they used.

First well published incident was cutting off Estonia in 1993, right after it regained independence.

Note Russia always does something to shift the blame, usually starts "dispute" over payments. It's done because media need to report ”balanced" view, so just by reading general news it's not apparent tha this is really blackmail. Stockholm tribunal regularly disproves Russian version, it just takes time, which is what Russia is after: you can't survive winter without heating, and the final verdict won't arrive in time. So until LNG terminals and pipelines to Norway sprang around the Baltic Sea, coupled with Third Package, Eastern Europeans mostly had to yield to this blackmail.

> The only time when we had issue with gas

ISTM you live west of Oder. No one in Eastern Europe would say this.

> it was some ten years ago when Ukraine stopped the transit hoping to blackmail both Russia and the EU to get a better deal for themselves. Ukraine was a failed state then that couldn't pay for gas they used.

This is false, Ukraine wasn't "failed state". What failed was an attempt to rig an election.

It is a failed state. Or call it a puppet state. After the Maidan coup it became pretty fast s fascist autocracy. And it was corrupt since the gain of independence. How else would you call it? A pinnacle of democracy certainly not.

> After the Maidan coup it became pretty fast s fascist autocracy

I think you are confusing Ukraine after Maidan with Russia under Putin.

(Well, no, I really think you are just parroting laughably dumb Russian propaganda, but it would be more accurate with those substitutions.)