No, it is not an act of war. Article 51 of the UN Charter explicitly grant right to self defence. Inviting other nations to assist in that defence is a right granted by the UN Charter. Iran can obviously consider Ukranian personal as hostile, that is their prerogative, but that does not mean that shooting down drone in self defence is an act of war.
Ukraine is not at war with Iran. Ukraine is helping defend against Iran attach to countries around Iran. The US is attaching Iran. The US asked no help to Ukraine.
BTW, the US aid didn’t stop since the Epstein class of senators did approve 600 mill plan of military aid for Ukraine in 2026.
As of today 0 dollars are coming to Ukraine as the president has effectively stalled them
Helping puppet states (like gulf monarchies) and interfering with other regions warfare just proves that this Ukraine regime is another puppet for western imperialism.
Helping some independent states (not western) to defend themself is proof of western imperialism? Sure thing… you are making a lot of sense.
And you continue to ignore that the US stopped support for Ukraine as soon as the epstein class came to power, that Trump attacked Zelensky numerous times, tried to force a peace deal drafted by Russia onto Ukraine (demanding recognition of occupied territories and more), and the suspension of Intelligence and Residual support (now provided directly by Ukraine and France as Primary alternative provider).
Helping Gulf states is instrumental is creating defence partnership that fuel Ukraine war economy against Russia. This is done as the US is not supporting Ukraine anymore and is arguable more favorable to Russia (easing of sanction to Russia, normalizing Russia-US economy cooperation, and redirecting military supply paid by Europe for Ukraine to domestic needs instead)
What you say is just false.
Trump explicitly rejected help from Ukraine with drone defence. And he has done so multiple times. The help Ukraine is given is to UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and Jordan, not the US.
If both statement are the same to you then every country that sells weapons to israel is a legitimate target for resistance movement ( like the EU )
Sure, I will not find it problematic if Russia decided to enact defensive measure in Gaza to protect palestine against weapon sold by European nations. I actually would encourage it. I would also encourage any nation to come to the defence of any nation that is a target of an aggressive conquest war from the EU. None materialized as of now for the EU, but for sure I have no problem whatsoever with Russia defending Iran against American aggression. I have problems with Russia being the aggressor.
EDIT: I want to also add that after 2023 numerous EU countries enacted arms embargoes against Israeil. Iran started supplying the drone to Russia after the invasion and to support the invasion. That is a worthy enough difference to me.
Ukraine has no business defending against the same drones Iran used to bomb Ukranian cities during Russia invasion of Ukraine?
Maybe I am missing something here. Does not look like Ukraine is part of the aggressor here.
Lack of respect for reality to appease a fascist child is not working.
10-30 year lead time
I mean, it does not need to be 10-30 years. UAE deployment was from nothing (literally nothing), to first reactor connected in 12 years. The first first years were just for regulation and selecting a partner. Construction took 8 years. The median time for reactor deploy in Japan, Korea and China is 52 months, 65 months, and 68 months respectively, with China getting faster and faster. US and UK are the odd one out, with some deploy taking 513 month and 282 month respectively.
If the EU reform nuclear regulation on the continent and promote nuclear deployment in Italy, Poland, and Germany that would help a lot. The US needs to undergone a similar transformation.
I never said cost is comparable. It is not, in Europe more so than other countries. Nonetheless you are not paying the cost of the nuclear power plant, you are paying the price of electricity. And nuclear lower the price of electricity (see Finland) reason why petrol state like UAE, or china built nuclear power plant. The cost of nuclear in china is competitive with renewable. China is building 28 new reactors, with 59 already built (average construction time of 6 years and 3 billions dollars each). Not every country can build a nuclear power plant: your grid need to support the massive amount of energy produced by a nuclear power plant, your country need to support the massive upfront cost to build one, your country need to be stable, reliable and not encounter opposition from international organizations as nuclear power plant could be used to produce nuclear weapons, and finally you need to have domestic support for nuclear energy and political commitment across the political spectrum for years to make the necessary regulatory commitment.This makes it very hard to have the condition to build one. Furthermore you have a real advantage if you have the domestic know how in your country, and most simply do not have that.
The need for power maybe (not counting on that given the greater need caused by AI and the rapid industrialization of Asia and Africa), but the need for electricity will certainly not go down. While an electric car is more efficient, no electricity was used before to power the cars is going to replace.
Because the need for electricity will only grow the more electrification we do, and doing both is better then doing just one of the two. We need to max-out out production capacity for solar, wind and batteries anyway (and by production I mean combination of grid capacity and rate of expansion, material mining and refinement, labor, legislative bottleneck and capital availability). Anything more is definitionally better, and nuclear is a lot of way complementary with solar, wind, and batteries in materials, fuel, grid usage and operational constraint (namely it is dispatchable and can do load following).
True, but with known reserves and no material recycling we have 70 years of material at current rate. If we add undiscovered deposits we have more or less 200 years. If we add ocean deposits we have 60000 years. If we reprocess the uranium in breeder reactors (we have them already built in Russia, China, India) we can potentially arrive at 5 millions year of reserves. Given we are already discussing thorium rectors, this time frame makes uranium not a problem really.
If we can do both we should do both. This is not nuclear vs renewable. They solve different problems. Modern nuclear reactor design like Terrapower are created to work with renewable (using molten salt energy storage). Humanity will not reduce the amount of energy it uses, and we need to force the electrification transition if we do not want to destroy our planet.
Yes, the barrier for nuclear is much much much higher then renewable development. We know that the same nuclear reactor costs 3.5 billion in china, 4.5 billion in japan, and 9 billion in Europe. That is a huge difference. This is not just a technology problem, but an issue about regulation and processes. I am not arguing for going back to the regulatory framework before Chernobyl and Fukushima, but to take some lessons from the world of aviation where safety is important, but outcome driven and pragmatic regarding costs.
If we want SNR to succeed we need to make it so that you certify one reactor out of the factory line and then you can build a hundred more without to having to re-certify every single reactor.
Battery can meet the equivalent baseload. The problem is production capacity, cost, connections and the pollution caused by this deployment. Often is simply better to deploy more renewable than needed. Today you need curtailment to manage grid stability, the higher the percentage of nuclear is the higher the dependency on battery and curtailment is raising the cost of renewable.
The main problem is that in europe there is no single regulatory body for the certification of nuclear reactor. That means that a nuclear reactor certified for france needs to be certified again for UK, Poland or Czechia. The requirements for nuclear are much higher then a solar power plant. Each single material and part needs to be certified and the entire production is tracked (material traceability, QA testing, chain of custody). A valve in a nuclear power plant cost 100 times more then the same valve in a coal plant. There are very few companies that deal with this level of paperwork required, this means often you need to create new production lines. Regulation in nuclear is not outcome oriented, but process oriented. So you do not have incentive to make everything more efficient: you do not care about the end result, you care about every single steps in the process. This make everything much longer and expensive. Post Fukushima raised a lot the cost of all design made before as new requirements caused to modify previous plants. This is one of the main reasons for the delay in nuclear deploy in the last 20 years.
cheap uranium can be bought from Canada and Kazakhstan. In Europe there are big reserves in Ukraine. But uranium can also be extracted from water. Getting uranium from the ocean is 3 to 5 times more expensive. But uranium is a minimal part of the cost of nuclear energy. So if we get uranium from the ocean, energy price will raise by 10% to 15%. On fossil fuel power plant the actual fuel is most of the cost of the energy. Furthermore you can buy uranium years in advance, making it much easier to prevent jump in market prices.
In the current European legislative environment yes. We lack common certification rules, standardized procurement and security standards that make sense. Nuclear in Europe is double the time to build and double the cost of nuclear in Japan. This was not always the case. France was able to decarbonized faster than any other big country in the world thanks to the rapid deployment of his fleet. If we fix that, new nuclear in Europe makes sense. We currently lack the technology and the industrial capacity to not be dependent on China for solar, wind and batteries. Nuclear provide energy when you need it, stabilize the grid and ultimately reduce the price of energy (like you see in Finland). The higher the share of renewable in the European grid, the higher the amount of batteries needed. In general one could argue that the best grid mix for lowering external dependencies and costs is 10% to 20% nuclear, and the rest hydro, solar, wind and batteries. In the north of Europe wind is a great resource, but in the most industrialized part of the south (Italian padana plain) the wind potential is very low, as the solar potential in winter when the fog would cover everything. The amount of connections to make a renewable only grid work on the European level are not trivial nor cheap, and we should do anything we can to promote and regulatory environment where the best tool for the job can be deployed.
Was referring no to this recent article cited in the cross posted thread: https://feddit.org/post/27922091
Iran is the aggressor against the gulf state. No gulf state has made aggressive action against Iran, and there was no military action from gulf states except self defence. All gulf states have no interest in getting involved in the conflict and asked for deescalation at the UN. In a joint declaration from the middle east council on global affairs:
When Iran decided to attach civilian targets totally unrelated with the conflict then it became aggressor. Iran can be the aggressor and the target of war at the same time.