Romanian Officials Say Russia Finances European Fracking Protests 155
HughPickens.com writes Andrew Higgins reports in the NYT that Romanian officials including the prime minister point to a mysteriously well-financed and well-organized campaign of protests over fracking in Europe and are pointing their fingers at Russia's Gazprom, a state-controlled energy giant, that has a clear interest in preventing countries dependent on Russian natural gas from developing their own alternative supplies of energy and preserving a lucrative market for itself — and a potent foreign policy tool for the Kremlin. "Russia, as part of their sophisticated information and disinformation operations, engaged actively with so-called nongovernmental organizations — environmental organizations working against shale gas — to maintain dependence on imported Russian gas," says NATO's former secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen. A wave of protest against fracking began three years ago in Bulgaria, a country highly dependent on Russian energy. Faced with a sudden surge of street protests by activists, many of whom had previously shown little interest in environmental issues, the Bulgarian government in 2012 banned fracking and canceled a shale gas license issued earlier to Chevron.
Russia itself has generally shown scant concern for environmental protection and has a long record of harassing and even jailing environmentalists who stage protests. On fracking, however, Russian authorities have turned enthusiastically green, with Putin declaring last year that fracking "poses a huge environmental problem." Places that have allowed it, he said, "no longer have water coming out of their taps but a blackish slime." For their part Green groups have been swift to attack Rasmussen's views, saying that they were not involved in any alleged Russian attempts to discredit the technology, and were instead opposed to it on the grounds of environmental sustainability. "The idea we're puppets of Putin is so preposterous that you have to wonder what they're smoking over at Nato HQ," says Greenpeace, which has a history of antagonism with the Russian government, which arrested several of its activists on a protest in the Arctic last year.
One should be careful on the logic here (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: One should be careful on the logic here (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: One should be careful on the logic here (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If the problem is the regulations aren't being enforced then enforce the regulations instead of drafting even more regulations that won't be enforced either.
"All playing nice"? "Fool you twice"? I get the sense you're ready to do something truly foolish. Why don't you try living without any petroleum based products for a while before you decide it's OK to cripple the oil industry? You might decide that the result is not to your liking and then you will still be able to recover easily. If you try it the
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to be confused by "existing" - obviously the existing regulations haven't worked.
One could make the same claim of driving or speech. There are bad actors, hence, the activity isn't regulated well enough and should be banned as a result.
Re: (Score:2)
It kind of is when the companies are known not to plug the holes properly
That has nothing to do with "fracking". Improperly sealed wellheads can be a problem with any gas well, fracked or conventional.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
just to be that guy ...
It kind of is when the companies are known not to plug the holes properly once they're done with an area. It's a problem in my province, which has caused some uproar, justifiably.
So fracking is not bad, if the companies doing it aren't bad, but because the companies in whichever 3rd world country you live in are not subject to regulations and/or control, fracking is bad ...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the third world country of Canada.
Got off on the wrong foot today?
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, if Canada values oil, gas etc so much that it is willing to poop all over the environment, then, yeah, 3rd world country - sorry if that upsets your view of your homecountry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
BUT, that is an issue with regulations on fracking, not an issue with fracking itself.
And if oil companies are not sealing their wells, I would be objecting as well if I were you.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is that fracking is not a bad thing either.
Uh, what? Increased seismic activity (link shown in two cases) and water contamination (link shown in multiple cases) aren't bad things? Seriously, what? Also, they're injecting refinery wastes into the holes. Seriously, fucking what?
Re: One should be careful on the logic here (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, the seismic activity might be a good thing.
The link is basically that the fracking is weakening some structures that then drop below the strength needed to keep a quake from happening at current pressure. This causes a small quake. The alternative is to let the pressure build until it exceeds what the current structures down there can handle, this would cause a single large quake.
I'm not pro-fracking (I think the ground water contamination is bad), plus the cheap gas slows movement away from fossil fuels, but the increase is small quakes shouldn't be thought of as bad IMO.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the seismic activity might be a good thing.
It isn't, and I already provided this link to a logged-in user earlier, you don't really deserve it: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/index/earthquakes/Pages/qh_earthquakes_myths.aspx [ca.gov] And you seriously could have found it with google, in a hot second.
Re: (Score:2)
'Idiot' doesn't work like that at all. What happens is you just shift stresses in fault line to other locations 'BUILDING UP' to major quakes in those locations. The completely and utterly stupid idea that you can spend eternity chasing your own tail alleviating stresses in fault lines is just plain nuts. You do not remove the stresses, they are constant, you shift the focal point of stresses by failures at particular locations, at particular times, shifting those stresses to a new location, where major st
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that fracking is not a bad thing either.
Uh, what? Increased seismic activity (link shown in two cases) and water contamination (link shown in multiple cases) aren't bad things? Seriously, what? Also, they're injecting refinery wastes into the holes. Seriously, fucking what?
Scientists agree that fracking activity is far too deep for it to leech out to ground water. The cases of contamination are mostly due to problems with the well casing. We didn't stop building houses because poorly constructed ones could collapse on people, we tightened codes and toughened inspections, the same is needed to fix the wells issue. As for the seismic activity it causes more rattled nerves then actual damage.
Re: (Score:2)
You are in very good company with the Climate change deniers, the anti-vaccine movement and the Intelligent Design community.
I can't help it if you can't recognize the difference. I bet you're in favor of rBGH, too, even though that's also been proven in court to produce inferior product which has negative health impact.
I'm also against the flu vaccine being marketed as if it were equally effective every year. If you want to call me an anti-vaxxer, you're welcome to do so, but you're an idiot. However, you probably can't change that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If your goal is to to debate, then lacing comments with insults nullifies any useful input you may have. You effectively ruin an opportunity to give thoughtful feedback.
You, sir, are a hypocrite, because that's precisely what you did when you lumped me in with a bunch of ignorant assholes whose views are not based on any logic. And this is not an insult, it is a fact: You are a hypocrite. But since I live near The Geysers, and I know that even in California minor quakes actually cause significant damage to houses yearly, and further that this problem can be exacerbated by pumping fluids into the ground as has been done here, there's actually a basis for my reasoning.
You in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll believe that the moment an oil multi's board moves into the area where they're doing some fracking.
Re: (Score:2)
[quote]I'll believe that the moment an oil multi's board moves into the area where they're doing some fracking.[/quote]
That's just silly. Not only is it an absurd thing to ask of them, it would prove absolutely nothing. You know full well that if such a thing DID happen you'd call it a publicity stunt and remain opposed to fracking anway ... so why make such a dishonest claim? Hyperbole?
Re: (Score:2)
I'll probably not be very convinced that it's any safer, but it would at the very least show that oil companies themselves are at least convinced that it's safe. I'm kinda certain that even they KNOW it's unsafe but ... well, there's money to be made.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm kinda certain that even they KNOW it's unsafe but ... well, there's money to be made.
Certain based on what? The zero scientific evidence which shows any risk of harm greater than existing drilling methods?
How can you be certain that someone whom you've never met or spoken to actually knows something which cannot even be shown to be true? This would be like me saying "I'm certain that Obama knows that an alien spaceship was recovered in Roswell, but he's covering it up because there's money to be made". Hilarious, maybe, but completely nonsensical.
Re: (Score:2)
In texas, the oil executive sued to prevent fracking. His stated reason was that the water towers would lower his property values and ruin the view.
What about everyone else's property values and views?
Re: (Score:2)
That's Commie talk! The Libertarian view is that they can pay for their own lawyers.
Re: (Score:1)
Fracking is used to get hold of more hydrocarbons to burn into CO2. For some reason this is a very popular idea among European politicians who keep talking about Climate Change.
They do so from a hypothesis that natural gas from fracking will replace oil. It won't. Demand and supply will ensure that fracking lowers the price of hydro carbons, giving (especially poor) countries an incentive to keep burning hydro carbons for longer. Currently, the only thing that will cause a serious move to wind/solar/fusion
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that fracking is not a bad thing either.
It's amazing to me that this single statement can get modded "troll" on a website dedicated to people who supposedly are tech fans / experts.
Re: (Score:1)
Especially because it's highly likely that there is a lot of self-interested money on both sides here. If your heuristic is that the side funded by someone unsavory must be wrong, might want to look into where Romanian politicians are getting their money from.
Re:One should be careful on the logic here (Score:5, Insightful)
The Saudis are heavily involved in anti fracking propaganda in the US as well.
Everyone paying attention knows what is going on. This more about money and less about the environment.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that fracking does improve the national security of eastern european countries by reducing their energy dependency on Russia.
That is just a fact. And all things being equal, were I Romanian, Polish, or Ukrainian... I would be very pro fracking if only because it would reduce Putin's leverage on my people.
That of course isn't enough. Each of these countries needs to be able to hold off a Russian invasion for long enough to get allied assistance. And what is more, each of these countries nee
Re: (Score:2)
Logically, no. But then, one has to understand that every position - no matter how altruistic your motivation - has a consequence. If your local group is protesting anything based on funding from Putin (or the Koch Brothers, or George Soros, etc) understand that as well-intentioned as your protests may be, you are being used as a convenient pawn.
And then understand that because of that consequence (or some associated one), that position means that you may have repugnant allies, who agree with that positio
Re: (Score:3)
...But then, one has to understand that every position - no matter how altruistic your motivation - has a consequence. If your local group is protesting anything based on funding from Putin (or the Koch Brothers, or George Soros, etc) understand that as well-intentioned as your protests may be, you are being used as a convenient pawn.
Put you faith in ideas, not persons. Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while.
Re: (Score:1)
First:
Russia/Putin wants fracking but by themselves - not by the other - in article you have exampe that Gazprom frakcing initiative on the other part of Romania had no protests at all.
Secondly - still fracking is better than giving Russia money for war in Georgia, Ukraina, Moldova.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Agreed, I don't think Putin is funding all or maybe even any anti-franking protests because like you I'm anti-fracking but also most definitely anti-Russian imperialism. However he IS funding the far-right in Europe. See here for example:
http://www.theweek.co.uk/europ... [theweek.co.uk]
al Jazeera has a decent article on the reasoning behind it here also:
http://www.aljazeera.com/indep... [aljazeera.com]
There are other far right parties in the UK that Russia likely has a hand in funding but are much harder to prove. One example is UKIP in t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"The Brits seem a bit hamstrung when it comes to dealing with internal security. That's not to imply that the UK is somehow more careful about justice or respectful of privacy and citizens' rights than the US: the UK has an obvious (and at times overbearing) internal security apparatus that is ineffective in dealing with some major internal security problems."
Without knowing what the security services are doing in the background it's really hard to say whether this is the case. The thing you have to realise
Re: (Score:1)
Thee not me (Score:5, Insightful)
it has a name... (Score:5, Insightful)
...in the US we call it "lobbying and advertising" and corporations of course spend billions trying to influence people to engage in behaviors that increase the profitability and public image of their business.
so it's in Russia's interest to prevent fracking...ok well they spend money to sway public opinion...sounds like SOP to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Governments collect money from people forcibly as taxes and use it for things like this. Corporations cannot do this (unless you want to count cases where corporations are in bed with government).
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe Putin could help (Score:2, Insightful)
Clearly oil companies don't give a rat's ass about the effects of oil extraction (can you say DeepWater Horizon?), so it just makes sens
Re:Maybe Putin could help (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Maybe Putin could help (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Small earthquakes keep big ones from happening. Each magnitude level represents about 31.6 times more energy released. It takes 32 magnitude 3s to equal the energy released in a magnitude 4, 1,000 magnitude 3s to equal a magnitude 5 and a billion magnitude 3s to equal a single magnitude 9. So while a small quake may temporarily ease stress on a fault line, it does not prevent a large temblor.
This basically says "no effect either way" from my non-expert reading of it. Also, small quakes cause no damage. If fracking causes damaging quakes, then that's an issue. It's like saying "that wind from the desk fan is damaging me, like a hurricane would!" Umm, no it isn't. If it doesn't hit the threshold, you're being an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
This basically says "no effect either way" from my non-expert reading of it
Um no, not exactly. It basically says ChrisMaple was right, and drinkypoo has once again lived up to his name. The article admits that small quakes DO take some of the energy away from larger ones, and do delay them by "temporarily easing stress on the fault line". It merely points out that the massive disparity in energy levels means that a single small quake (or even a hundred small quakes) cannot permanently avert a much larger one. If, however, you keep repeating this "temporary" fix, you end up wit
Strategic resource (Score:2)
Re: Strategic resource (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you say he is wrong, please deliver arguments that support your reasoning.
But i will argument against your points - btw. I might not be windbourne but I do work with wind for profit & because I want to see renewables to succeed ;) - just in case you want to refrain from argueing and want to short cut by just saying that I'm just a disbeliever - I like to work on arguments and logical reasoning.
1.) nat gas -> oil
This is basically on it's wide extreme step not a favourable choice, because you are re
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you fools think that you can substitute electricity for oil? The fact is, that you can not. Oil is fungible, but NOT with electricity. The only place that it is true, is in a hybrid vehicles, but right now, that is only in small cars, and is worthless.
You are DEAD wrong that gas and diesel are cleaner than nat gas. Totally impossible to be the case. Clean nat gas has 2 emissions: CO2 and H2O. Even gasoline and 'clean diesel' do not come that clean. EVER.
In addition, nat gas or oil turnin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Big mistake. Instead, we need to use it to get us off oil, while cleaning up our emissions and moving us to full electrics.
Right now, nearly all of our commercial vehicles, along with large passenger vehicles (such as suburbans), are incapable of moving to full electric economically.
BUT, by moving these vehicles to nat gas, and then to serial hybrids with nat gas, it makes it easy for makers to move to full electrics
Re: (Score:2)
Just some bits of info (Score:5, Informative)
I'm Romanian, and there is some information missing from this "news". First of all, the Russian company Gazprom has been given a lot of exploration/exploitaition licences in Romania, including the rights for prospecting for shale gas. They operate through a Serbian subsidiary called Nis, and they have already started prospections in the Western area of the country. Therefore, I really doubt Russia finances the civic campaigns against fracking. Then, the Romanian officials quoted include a very controversial mayor of the village where Chevron first started to look for shale gas. That mayor happened to buy the field where the prospections were to be started just before Chevron came. He made a nice profit in the meanwhile, and the non-governmental organizations have acused him from the start of being - possibly - "persuaded" financially by Chevron itself. So these officials are far from being unbiased on the matter.
The other thing the story fails to tell about is that the movement against dangerous mining operations (not only fracking) is very strong in Romania for several years now, we had massive demostrations, with tens of thousands of protesters gathering in major cities each time such a danger was percieved. And they are the same protesters that actively despise Russia and its influence in the region. Because, unlike Hungary, Serbia and other neighbours, Romania has managed to keep the political Russian influence away -- we've had enough of their bright ideas when they imposed communism on us, and we do not forget that easily.
All in all, this looks like a manipulative story, possibly put forward by those who would have something to gain from fracking in a country where the population density/distribution makes this method dangerous if not criminal -- and this includes Russians. They won't succeed, of course, they keep underestimating our resolve/intelligence.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
[quote]unlike Hungary, Serbia and other neighbours, Romania has managed to keep the political Russian influence away[/quote]
That's not quite correct. Bulgaria's majority is also against Russian influence (I know for I am one).
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-20/palmer-says-green-groups-funded-by-cia/3901920
And just when we had chosen our enemy... (Score:2)
C'mon, that ain't ok. We've worked long and hard to pinpoint Russia as the new evil with Putin as the new Hitler, and now you push that all down by telling us that there's something GOOD coming from that side of the propaganda war?
Stop confusing your subjects!
Fracking, not what you think it is. (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's not forget there are some benefits to horizontal completions. Thanks to horizontal completions petroleum products (gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, plastics and on and on and on) prices are plummeting. Thanks to horizontal completions, natural gas is now cheaper the coal in the US and coal power plants are being converted to natural gas which is all around cleaner, safer, and produces half the CO2 of coal. Thanks to horizontal completions, OPEC's 40 year cartel appears to be at an end, and horizontal completions dropping the price of oil has been the most effective "sanction" by far on Russia, putting more pressure on Putin and the ruble then all the heads of state combined.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks to horizontal completions petroleum products (gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, plastics and on and on and on) prices are plummeting.
and with bullets on sale it's even cheaper to shoot ourselves in the foot!
Thanks to horizontal completions, natural gas is now cheaper the coal in the US and coal power plants are being converted to natural gas which is all around cleaner, safer, and produces half the CO2 of coal.
that's as great as getting half as much cancer than normal.
Thanks to horizontal completions, OPEC's 40 year cartel appears to be at an end, and horizontal completions dropping the price of oil has been the most effective "sanction" by far on Russia, putting more pressure on Putin and the ruble then all the heads of state combined.
i'm no fan of bad governments but wouldn't it be better to just do away with OPEC by moving to clean energy like solar?
I've always wondered... (Score:2)
How much oil company/Middle East money there is behind the antinuclear movement.
Re: (Score:2)
NGOs (Score:2)
It is not just Russia, and not just "protests" (Score:3)
The similarity of goals make for strange bed-fellows. Russia and Saudi Arabia may have little else in common, but they are both major exporters of fossil fuels. Not having the same sort of spy-network as Russia, Saudis finance propaganda movies [cnn.com]. Russia would do that too, of course — and take care of translating such movies for audiences in Russia and its Russian-speaking neighbors.
And when propaganda-campaigns fail to stop other countries from developing their own energy-sources, Russia will invade [charter97.org]...
[citation needed] (Score:2)
Some guy at the NATO says that. Without any proof or even evidence. Is this an attempt to discredit anti-fracking movements? Or Russia?
Re: (Score:2)
You have to read Vladimir Putins PhD thesis title and synopsis. This is hardly something new. The Soviet Union used to pay for anti-nuclear protestors in Europe and even gave the Jackal weapons that were later used in a terrorist attack against the SuperFenix fast breeder reactor in France.
Of course Russia is interested in having less competition. Competition would mean a lower oil price and thus less profits for them. Even if the people doing the fracking have less profit than they would have. As for the s
Re: "Turk Stream" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, ~70% of the average European price is a fraction, that is true. But not a small one. And justified due to generally lower gas prices on the global market.
In fact, it might even result in a net profit - leaving the notoriously not paying Ukraine out of the loop might be cheaper in long term.
Re: (Score:2)
Putin Kills "South Stream" Pipeline, Will Build New Massive Pipeline To Turkey Instead (12/01/2014)
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/... [zerohedge.com]
"massive gas pipeline that will travel from Russia, transit through Turkey, and stop at the Greek border – giving Russia access to the Southern European market. In effect, Russia will still have access to the Southern Stream endmarkets"
Re: (Score:2)
""massive gas pipeline that will travel from Russia, transit through Turkey, and stop at the Greek border â" giving Russia access to the Southern European market. In effect, Russia will still have access to the Southern Stream endmarkets""
Which ironically means that it's piped into Europe proper by third parties, which is all the European Union was asking for in the first place because the EU doesn't like the same company to control both supplies and pipelines.
Or in other words, Russia's new project is
Re: (Score:2)
Except that Gazprom wasn't controlling the pipelines on their own, the distribution network was owned by the South Steam AG, which was a joint venture between Gazprom, Eni and EDF. EU tried to stall the project anyway - without real arguments, just for some political grandstanding - and this is the result.
It is much more embarrassing for the EU because Bulgaria won't see a cent of the carriage fees now. It is especially painful because Bulgaria is the poorest EU country and desperately needs money.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it embarassing for the EU at all? it was embarassing that the EU was sending so much money to a country desperate to rip it to pieces in the first place, the fact that Bulgaria loses out and has to find money from elsewhere is small fry compared to the massive benefit of Europe finally starting to ween itself off of Russian gas which gave Putin a stranglehold over vast areas of European politics. Europe gets to be independent again, Gazprom, a de-facto Russian state owned organisation doesn't get to
Re: (Score:2)
What benefit? Russian gas was very reliable and inexpensive. Even during the height of the cold war the gas was supplied as promised. And now, thanks to the hubris of some stupid politicians we'll probably have to import the way too expensive LNG from USA. That will lead to a recession. In fact, thanks to the sanctions Germany has already only narrowly avoided it, but it still can happen next year. Trade is what keeps peace, but apparently, it is now too long ago since the last war, several EU chickenhawks
Re: (Score:2)
"What benefit? Russian gas was very reliable and inexpensive."
Reliable compared to what? inexpensive for whom?
I can only guess you've been paying no attention to world affairs because Russian gas was only reliable if you did what Putin wanted. Did you miss the whole gas cutoffs to Ukraine and parts of Europe the last time Ukraine tried to pave it's own destiny? Did you not see the prices Russia was demanding of Ukraine the second time Ukraine tried to pave it's own destiny?
Yes Russian gas is inexpensive and
Re: (Score:2)
However, the SMART thing is to convert your coal into methane. In America, it costs us less than $7/MMBTU to dig up coal and convert it. It should be less than that if done in eastern europe. And with Russia charging you $10-15/MMBTU, this would be quite the savings. Interestingly, it would also be cleaner.
BUT, I agree with your last bit there. I am not convinced that sanctions on Russia will work the way that they would b
Re: (Score:2)
Russia may need the income, but their debt is miniscule compared to every single first world country
Their public debt is, yes.
Their private debt is not. This includes several of the major banks, which the govt now has to bail out because they cannot service their outstanding debts in the face of the sanctions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: This isn't new... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The SDS splintered years before Nixon ended the draft, so your chronology seems a bit off. The bulk of them went into anti-prison and anti-racism activism, as far as I can tell, not environmentalism.
When is the book coming out? (Score:2)
It could sell though, people didn't think it was too ridiculous for CERN to create a black hole to kill the Pope, so your ridiculous idea may get some traction as an airport novel.
Re: (Score:3)
I believe the Ferguson rioters were left-wing. And they were certainly trying to use violence to terrorize people for political purposes. Of course, you could always be loose as to your definition of terrorism on the right and not so loose on the left. And Moscow didn't need to fund them, but they still count as left-wing terrorists by your overly loose definition.
Furthermore, since you went back to 1995 for the Oklahoma City bombing, I can point out the rise of ecoterrorism [forbes.com], and the Discovery building s [nbcnews.com]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: Unprecedented interference with free debate! (Score:2)
Re: Fracking is evil... (Score:1)
I'm not a big fan of fracking, but that burning tap water thing is bogus. Those people had methane coming out their faucet before fracking began. I don't like it when people use bad arguments for a good stance, just because it's easier.
Re: (Score:1)
Nonsense. The US spent 5 billion.
Re:Not here in France... (Score:4, Insightful)
You can "categorically state" it, but it may still be the truth. Matt Damon didn't know either [cnsnews.com]...
Russia does not advertise such help, of course. It helps your kind remain sincere and your words — plausible. USSR — through that fun and Earth-friendly agency named KGB [wikipedia.org] — penetrated various churches and "peace" forums, financed terrorists and saboteurs, the works... Most of those did not, of course, realize, where the help they were getting originates...
Today FBI warns us about Cuban intelligence targeting academics [fbi.gov] (they don't have to name Russia by name here):
Of course, the fools used by such foreigners don't realize, they are exploited — few are bona-fide traitors...
Re: (Score:2)
Citations needed. With WikiLeaks and Snoweden out there, you should have no problem coming up with 10 counter-examples for each example listed in Mitrochin Archive [wikipedia.org]. Start with assassins...
But I was not even that outraged with USSR/Russia themselves — my anger is with the domestic fools ("useful idiots" [wikipedia.org] as the USSR/Russia affectionately refer to them) — who do their utmost to sabotage their own cou
Re: (Score:2)
It would be a mistake to assume, the problem is unique to our period in history. USSR was conducting its covert propaganda campaigns decades before, and they weren't the first to invent such methods either.
For example, compare the world's reaction to American invasion of Korea — to prevent Communists from taking over the country — with the same sort of thing in Vietnam a few years later... The motivation was the same, the methods were the same, the goals were the same —
Re: (Score:2)
Would you please point to a study that states that fracking wells have a higher incidence of water contamination than normal classic oil or gas wells? Traditionally Romanian gas exploration has used hydraulic fracturing. The only difference is that we are now drilling deeper, as well as horizontally and we can exploit more from an existing deposit. To give you an idea: right now, out of all the electricity produced in Romania, only 39% is carbon producing (coal, heating oil, gas), the rest is non carbon pro