Lithuania will vote Sunday on whether to delay the closing of the aging Ignalina nuclear plan, which has a Chernobyl-style reactor. Many officials want the delay because they do not want to depend on Russia for energy, but President Valdas Adamkus sees it as breaking a promise to the European Union.
(Source: SmartBrief)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
One example of how much bias can be put into a rather small piece of news. Lithuania has the highest percentage of nuclear produced power in its energy balance in the world. For a small country (about 4 mln people) closing a plant that is quite safe from technological point of view, and still has a resource to work for, means a complete dependence on EU energy suppliers. All these talks are about money and politics, as usual. Those who stress that Ignalina is a Chernobyl-type reactor, do not really know what happened in Chernobyl.
Will translate some more materials on that.
Having a referendum is very smart. As assuming the pro-nuclear side wins.. it will show that the government of Lithuania represents the will of the people, and the EU is against the people. Which is a powerful point.
For me if I was in Lithuania I'd really be questioning why I'm even in the European Union. From what I've read many eastern europeans countries were attracted by the economic side of things. But to me any place that builds real productive industry is going to be wealthy. Whether its small like Singapore or big like Europe. Destroying something so productive as a paid off nuclear power plant is going the other way, towards poverty.
--aa2
2 aa2
You know, it is a good question why they are in the EU, the same can be asked about Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania - all those countries that are new members and have to adopt themselves to the policies and standards of the EU, often sacrificing their domestic industries (for example, Latvia had to cut its butter production, previously really large, because of the quotas set by EU). The thing with Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia is that they are very small, hardly have any own resources, but they are strategically well placed. They realize well that once they are not within the EU, they will automatically get into the sphere of influence of Russia (or even annexed by Russia). And this is something they hate even to think about. The EU is their "big protecting brother", so to say. And they have to pay a huuuge price to this big brother in order to stay "inside".
Politics, as usual.
Thanks for explaining it to me. I guess they are afraid of being taken over by Russia yet again. All the way over here on the west coast of Canada, Russia seems like a place that is eager to do business and money to be made and attractive Russian ladies. And sporting events like hockey to play with.
But I guess living close to Moscow, small countires are willing to give up some freedom, in order to be protected.
--aa2
Russia has a certain image in the West which is correct to some extent (as most stereotypes are). But first of all Russia is a huge military and economic power of an authoritarian type, quite pushy and aggressive when it comes to territorial and influence issues. War in Georgia is a good example - they will never let NATO come that close. The Baltic states like Latvia and Lithuania are quite at odds with Russia because of military presence of NATO. Russians still cannot forget that these lands once there under their control.
Strange but true - closing Ignalina will benefit Russian suppliers of energy. Lithuania will have to buy Russian electricity, oil and gas probably triple as much compared to now. EU suppliers are out of question - they are buying all that in Russia themselves.
Post a Comment