Why on Earth would anyone assume this statement is true without investigation? Have you actually pulled the text of the sanctions as written in the various legal instruments in each jurisdiction mentioned to verify that the statement made by the Ambassador is correct?
I do indeed expect Paul to do it, I never cited the statement to support any position of mine, it was cited by Paul as an astute observation in the comments section without any verification and I expect some elbow grease in exchange for my hard-earned five dollars a month!
With the access he has to interesting people, I always enjoy Paul's interviews. Too often, though, it seems he avoids difficult questions to maintain that access. In this case, it would have been great to follow up the Ambassador's statements on clean energy efforts with the obvious question about why then they are closing their nuclear power stations, which could substitute clean power for a lot of Russian oil and gas.
Well, where to begin. That question wouldn't lose me access. Nor do I have particular access in the first place: this is my first interview with this ambassador, and my first with any German ambassador in about 16 years, if I recall correctly. But neither do I feel particular compulsion to ask the kind of question a lawyer would call "asked and answered." The wisdom of Germany dumping nuclear is not exactly a new question, and I doubt I could ask it forcefully enough to make the German ambassador stop being German, or an ambassador.
Thanks, Paul (may I call you Paul?) for the non-snarky response. I can appreciate there are certain questions we spectators would like to have answered that the professionals know are pointless to ask. I see this in the tech world when someone gets time with an Apple executive and wastes it by asking about future products — something they will never discuss.
The reference to "asked and answered" is a flippant and specious reply. This is the equivalent of suggesting that if you could somehow get an interview with Putin, it would not be worth asking him why he invaded Ukraine, because he has already provided a public statement on that point. Of course you should ask and press all questions of central relevance and importance to the subject you are interviewing on and this would have included nuclear in this case. I have found many of your articles on the budget and so on to be useful, but this strikes me as a puff piece for the Canadian and German governments.
Very good and informative interview Mr. Wells. But the insight into German thinking is also very troubling.
These people are delusional if they really think this is practical: ‘We want to wean ourselves from Russian energy in the fastest possible way — by building up our renewable energy, by diversifying, but also by changing our economy.’
The change she's talking about in that word salad will actually take a generation. They can't bring themselves to admit they've crippled themselves by virtue-signalling themselves out of nuclear power. God damn them, this will cost us all.
I understand your position in not asking the nuclear question. But perhaps a more interesting question is whether or not the Canadian government, in its discussions with Germany, didn't raise the question in the context it would be easier to explain to our population and other countries if there was a link to a delayed shutdown in the remaining power plants. Certainly not good when Germany is returning partly to coal in the interim.
Do you plan to interview any Ukrainean diplomats on this? I notice the printed interview did not ask the Ambassador why Germany chose Russian gas and restarting coal plants over restarting non-emitting and reliable nuclear plants instead. You let her off easy on an inexcusable and despicable decision by Canada and Germany.
He can mollify Paul Wells' readers on whether they are supportive of Ukraine, but they can't game a world of international investors. Krugman's NYT column today is about the Euro dipping below $1US.
He's come to the thesis that it's punishment for the Germany's fecklessness in dependence on Russian O&G. They even shut down perfectly good and safe nuclear reactors to impress their Greens, though they were of course raising their carbon output to do so. (Gas is actually just as climate-damaging as coal, if it's produced, processed, and transported in ways that add up to 4% leakage. Our gas may be as little as 2.5% - thus, a mere 80% as damaging as coal - but Russian sources are notorious for their massive leakage.)
Krugman notes that Germany and others acted as if the "only" negative to doing business with murderous kleptocrats is your association with autocracy, corruption, and human rights violations; but actually, the negative is that you can't trust them. Having dug itself in deep with dependence on Russia, the market is now punishing them with exchange rates that drive up German inflation much higher than ours.
If that costs the government an election, then perhaps the lesson will have been learned.
Sometimes it all just reads like an excuse for Germany not to face up to its ruinous energy policy and entanglement with Putin. If the consequences of this were properly borne by the German people, then they might actually punish (or at least throw out) those responsible and change course.
Good to hear Germany's point of view re pacifism and the need to keep the lights on. Very conflicted and difficult for Canada. Too bad the turbines could not have been repaired by Siemens in Germany.
Much of the Ukraine discussion is based on the false premise that "we" are hurting the Russians with sanctions. We, and especially the Europeans, are hurting ourselves far more than we are hurting the Russians. Europe will likely break and sue for peace by the time it starts getting cold. Russia is making more money than ever before.
Zelensky is perfectly happy to increase the pain on Europe because he thinks it will lead to military escalation rather than surrender. He might be right. But military escalation would be even worse for the West than the sanctions are (remember nuclear weapons?). It was time to cut our losses in March. Now it's past time and getting worse.
I see Brian Platt, a very good reporter at Bloomberg, has caught an implication of the ambassador's remarks that escaped me:
https://mobile.twitter.com/btaplatt/status/1547603725878890496
Why on Earth would anyone assume this statement is true without investigation? Have you actually pulled the text of the sanctions as written in the various legal instruments in each jurisdiction mentioned to verify that the statement made by the Ambassador is correct?
Will you? Or are you expecting Paul or Brian to do it for you?
I do indeed expect Paul to do it, I never cited the statement to support any position of mine, it was cited by Paul as an astute observation in the comments section without any verification and I expect some elbow grease in exchange for my hard-earned five dollars a month!
5 bucks eh?
With the access he has to interesting people, I always enjoy Paul's interviews. Too often, though, it seems he avoids difficult questions to maintain that access. In this case, it would have been great to follow up the Ambassador's statements on clean energy efforts with the obvious question about why then they are closing their nuclear power stations, which could substitute clean power for a lot of Russian oil and gas.
Well, where to begin. That question wouldn't lose me access. Nor do I have particular access in the first place: this is my first interview with this ambassador, and my first with any German ambassador in about 16 years, if I recall correctly. But neither do I feel particular compulsion to ask the kind of question a lawyer would call "asked and answered." The wisdom of Germany dumping nuclear is not exactly a new question, and I doubt I could ask it forcefully enough to make the German ambassador stop being German, or an ambassador.
Thanks, Paul (may I call you Paul?) for the non-snarky response. I can appreciate there are certain questions we spectators would like to have answered that the professionals know are pointless to ask. I see this in the tech world when someone gets time with an Apple executive and wastes it by asking about future products — something they will never discuss.
The reference to "asked and answered" is a flippant and specious reply. This is the equivalent of suggesting that if you could somehow get an interview with Putin, it would not be worth asking him why he invaded Ukraine, because he has already provided a public statement on that point. Of course you should ask and press all questions of central relevance and importance to the subject you are interviewing on and this would have included nuclear in this case. I have found many of your articles on the budget and so on to be useful, but this strikes me as a puff piece for the Canadian and German governments.
Wells writing a 'puff piece' for the Trudeau government?
That's funny.
Very good and informative interview Mr. Wells. But the insight into German thinking is also very troubling.
These people are delusional if they really think this is practical: ‘We want to wean ourselves from Russian energy in the fastest possible way — by building up our renewable energy, by diversifying, but also by changing our economy.’
The change she's talking about in that word salad will actually take a generation. They can't bring themselves to admit they've crippled themselves by virtue-signalling themselves out of nuclear power. God damn them, this will cost us all.
I understand your position in not asking the nuclear question. But perhaps a more interesting question is whether or not the Canadian government, in its discussions with Germany, didn't raise the question in the context it would be easier to explain to our population and other countries if there was a link to a delayed shutdown in the remaining power plants. Certainly not good when Germany is returning partly to coal in the interim.
Do you plan to interview any Ukrainean diplomats on this? I notice the printed interview did not ask the Ambassador why Germany chose Russian gas and restarting coal plants over restarting non-emitting and reliable nuclear plants instead. You let her off easy on an inexcusable and despicable decision by Canada and Germany.
Keep up the excellent work, Paul! And we should have lunch sometime!
How about a lunch and learn in the NAC foyer. :)
He can mollify Paul Wells' readers on whether they are supportive of Ukraine, but they can't game a world of international investors. Krugman's NYT column today is about the Euro dipping below $1US.
He's come to the thesis that it's punishment for the Germany's fecklessness in dependence on Russian O&G. They even shut down perfectly good and safe nuclear reactors to impress their Greens, though they were of course raising their carbon output to do so. (Gas is actually just as climate-damaging as coal, if it's produced, processed, and transported in ways that add up to 4% leakage. Our gas may be as little as 2.5% - thus, a mere 80% as damaging as coal - but Russian sources are notorious for their massive leakage.)
Krugman notes that Germany and others acted as if the "only" negative to doing business with murderous kleptocrats is your association with autocracy, corruption, and human rights violations; but actually, the negative is that you can't trust them. Having dug itself in deep with dependence on Russia, the market is now punishing them with exchange rates that drive up German inflation much higher than ours.
If that costs the government an election, then perhaps the lesson will have been learned.
This is what couldn't be said (at least directly) in the interview:
NP View: Germany's green energy hypocrisy made it an easy blackmail target https://nationalpost.com/opinion/np-view-germanys-green-energy-hypocrisy-made-it-an-easy-blackmail-target
Sometimes it all just reads like an excuse for Germany not to face up to its ruinous energy policy and entanglement with Putin. If the consequences of this were properly borne by the German people, then they might actually punish (or at least throw out) those responsible and change course.
Good to hear Germany's point of view re pacifism and the need to keep the lights on. Very conflicted and difficult for Canada. Too bad the turbines could not have been repaired by Siemens in Germany.
Kathleen
Much of the Ukraine discussion is based on the false premise that "we" are hurting the Russians with sanctions. We, and especially the Europeans, are hurting ourselves far more than we are hurting the Russians. Europe will likely break and sue for peace by the time it starts getting cold. Russia is making more money than ever before.
Zelensky is perfectly happy to increase the pain on Europe because he thinks it will lead to military escalation rather than surrender. He might be right. But military escalation would be even worse for the West than the sanctions are (remember nuclear weapons?). It was time to cut our losses in March. Now it's past time and getting worse.