Unpopular opinion : 1 first why eroupe care about the war Ukraine 2 Ukraine is part of Russia for many year dated back to the kievn rus 3 nato signed agreement in 1994 not push for the eu and nato in eastern Europe 4 nato insane radical expansion to eastern Europe including ( hack election supporting pro eu building fucking us bases in Russia border ) 5 the eu it self is globalist Babylonian beocracy 6 every country eu and nato enter it promotes : Mass migration ( refugee a war crimes done by nato and usa ) most of the country they immigrate are not in war no bored in country to replace the white population and make them minority in own countries !! _ porn addiction _atheism _lgbt and gay parade and u can't speak against this 7 eroupe could have avoided all of this mass if kept their noses out of Ukraine 8 the president of Ukraine himself was khazar jew pro gay globalist so that should rise red flags And eroupe complain ? 😠😂 I mean the balls on this guys
@2:34 I don't know about the Indian gas, but it is EXTREMELY unlikely that the gas China is sending to Europe is Russian gas. In fact, it makes no sense! China imports a lot of gas from both Russia and the US. The gas from Russia goes to China mainly via pipelines, ....while the gas from the US goes to China on LNG tankers. In order for China to resell Russian gas to Europe, China will have to : 1) liquify the gas, and then 2) transport the liquified LNG to the ports, and then 3) load the ships. All these cost a lot of money and time. If the Chinese resell the US gas to Europe instead, it costs China ZERO dollars!!! WHY WOULD THEY SELL THE RUSSIAN GAS INSTEAD OF THE US GAS????? Why would they pay for something that has ABSOLUTELY no benefits. It doesn't make any sense. In fact, the gas that China was FORCED to buy from the US don't even need to go to China before being sent to Europe. The gas can go DIRECTLY from the US to Europe without touching any Chinese ports saving EVEN THE TRANSPORTATION COSTS!!!!!
When Ukraine sent their troops to Iraq, they had no problem with invasions or not respecting other countries' sovereign territory. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq%E2%80%93Ukraine_relations#:~:text=Approximately%205000%20Ukrainian%20soldiers%2C%20in,Iraq%20%282003%E2%80%932011%29
EU Impose sanctions to Russia in effort to criple Russia's economy - Proceed to talk about how EU avoid recession from Russia energy blackmail.. 😂 The question is which one is have a crumble economy?
@@VodkaPandas The entire EU economically is still going strong. Russia on the other hand is hiding their bank details and other thing related to the Russian economy. Also, their equipment was not good to begin with, now they can barely scrape by.
I think that the four main economies of the European Union 🇪🇺 (Germany 🇩🇪, France 🇫🇷, Italy 🇮🇹 and Spain 🇪🇸) should take advantage of their strengths and unite more, including in the technological and military field (France has nuclear weapons and is a permanent member of the UN Security Council 🇺🇳). If they don't, it will be very difficult for Europe to compete with countries like the United States 🇺🇸, China 🇨🇳, India 🇮🇳, Russia 🇷🇺, United Kingdom 🇬🇧, Japan 🇯🇵 or Brazil 🇧🇷
UK is nothing compared to the EU and the others you listed other than maybe Japan. The scales are completely different. California in the US alone has bigger economy than the UK. And India, China, Brazil, its not even fair to compare the UK to them either lol.
@@HB-zl1disure but germany was larger than china less than 20 years ago. China grew really fast but europe did not grow at all after 2008 for 10 12 years. Even in worst case scenario india economy will be atleast 3 times uk in 20 years. Considering uk economy dire condition
@@Myanmartiger921 the reason why China and India are growing so fast is the amount of people in those countries. together they have about 6 times the amount of the EU. and they had a lot to catch up to over the last decades (and still do)
The problem is none is willing to cooperate. Spain and Portugal proposed a new pipe that could both transport gas from Algeria to Italy and Germany though France; and later on transport Hydrogen if it ever becomes mainstream. France shutdown the idea completly even with Germany backing up Spain and Portugal Spain and Portugal are almost like an island in EU, next to zero grid interconnections despite the EU mandating it (again France refuses to), no High Speed Rail connections (wont repeat myself) Spain and Portugal could be made into hubs from goods comign from america or africa on its way to mainland Europe, but France most of them time shutdow thos projects and they don't want to lose the actual power and control they have over their eastern neighbors
bah ça j’ai bien compris justement, c’est pour ça que je ne voulais pas qu’il s’abonne la qualité et que je travaillerai même sans pause, mais il s’apporteront pas ma qualité motif mobile pour délocaliser
So basically Europe stopped buying cheap Russian gas to buy more expensive US LNG AND Russian LNG via third parties like India and China, but this is somehow a win for Europe? This is a huge L any way you look at it. You're paying more for gas, you're STILL buying Russian gas and your industry is leaving the EU to China and the US....
Such people as the author of this video are accomplices in the crime of killing European industry.He simply retold Western propaganda about the fact that Russia refused to supply Gas to Europe, the reduction in gas supplies occurred due to the undermining of the northern streams, as well as after Poland stole Gazprom's assets on its territory, after which Gazprom refused to transport gas through Poland.There is also one surviving thread of the Nord Stream gas pipeline, but no one in Europe is in a hurry to negotiate with Gazprom, but I think now Russia will definitely not supply gas to Europe in In large numbers, Europe has shown its bestial grin, and Russia has found new trading partners in Asia.
One of the problems is a lot of heavy industry is not only energy hungry, but requires an extremely reliable source. An aluminium smelter can't just turn itself off for a few hours a day to save energy, it costs a lot of time and money to shut down and a lot of time and money to start back up again. That generally means coal, gas, hydro or nuclear are the only feasible options, not unless you install a massive battery that can cope with any variation in renewable output.
This. We recently worked at a (small local) steel melting company. They pay 300.000€ a month in energy. Imagine the amount of energy that is with all the tax cuts etc they have. How is that supposed to be produced by solar or wind?
@@johnsamuel1999 Yes, but the electricity comes from gas/coal powered power plants, or maybe hydro, if something is electric it doesn't mean that it's clean energy that powers it.
Not europe france has already 75% nuclear and 15% renewables their energy production is unaffected the same here in sweden. Its the germans with their stupid greens politics that is dragging the rest of europe down. They need to get their heads out of the sand and realize that shutting down nuclear power plants is a idiotic move. I think the french has one of the worlds best energy policy by using nuclear energy since they pay a lot less for their electricity and it does not release any co2. We swedes has the cheapest electricity in the world primary because of our hydro and nuclear mix. The only reason why our electricity prices has gone up is because of germany since they pay more for our electricity. This makes it so that our companies follows german rates rather then the swedish one. If we use around 4% of our electricity with natrual gas and oil the prices for those resources will not have a large effect on our energy prices. That primary thing that will have an effect on our energy prices is the price of uranium since that is 30% of our electricity generation. While germany got around 55% oil and gas usage for electricity. Not to mention that they still use gas heating instead of electric heating since they are extremely slow to adapt new technologies. I feel sad for competent german engineers and physicists who has to suffer the decisions of their idiotic politicians.
When Ukraine sent their troops to Iraq, they had no problem with invasions or not respecting other countries' sovereign territory. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq%E2%80%93Ukraine_relations#:~:text=Approximately%205000%20Ukrainian%20soldiers%2C%20in,Iraq%20%282003%E2%80%932011%29
Who would dare to invest in Europe now? Energy is not solved. Infrastructure is not being protected, e.g. Nordstream. Foreign properties are frozen. Trust is lost.
if only Europe made an effort to be energy self-sufficient by investing and building 4th generation nuclear reactors. Use fossil fuels when necessary (incl coal) until it is proven that wind-solar can work effectively. Force communities to accept fraking for oil and gas but work towards carbon-free solutions like hydrogen and nuclear
Europe needs to find a 4th gen reactor design it agrees upon and build out a nuclear industry. That Germany it still trying to put up photovoltaic absolutely confuses me: Germany has terrible solar potential. The only viable zero-carbon sources for Europe (with Spain as an exception) are wind and nuclear. And given that nuclear needs so much water, they need to be building them to feed seawater instead of freshwater. That takes time to build and can be done economically at scale but they needed to start years ago. And that comes back to it's political system: the EU is ran by boomers who aren't able to change their minds and still believe the myth of the danger that nuclear poses. Meaning its still going to be headed down the path of really terrible energy policy choices and de-industrialization to follow.
@@GabrielCazorlaPersson1 Not exacly true, you see, much of the regulation is basicly useless, since it rarely ends up changing the project, and just forces the companies to write thousands page long papers about the effects of every single thing, like even the effects of water vapour, of the freaking roads etc. Most of those are NOT for safety. Also thats not the only reason, so here is a list: 1- NIMBY 2- We basicly stopped building 3- We close down reactors and some countries even stopped research on the industry 4- The few countries that try to buil make singular projects, Instead of building multiple reactors at once to take advantage of economies of scale 5- The recent attempts at building reactors were all Gen III reactors, wich we barely built Solving this problems for the most part is not hard. France just lowered regulation to what it was in the Mesmer plan (and rememver Gen III reactors are far safer then those built during Mesmer plan) to build new reactors. And no meltdown ever happened in France, and in most countries using nuclear. Nuclear meltdowns are easely avoidable Poiting to renewables as better option over nuclear is like pointing to self driving cars as solution to traffic because HSR is to costy and dangerous
It's pure ideology, thank Greenpeace and their friends for delaying de-carbonization for a good 3 decades. PS Oh, and Jane Fonda. She's been at the forefront of all those lefty movements since the 1960's, including anti-nuclear histeria.
@@GabrielCazorlaPersson1 But one would ask why did France build tens of them in ten years, and now can't build one. Things like NIMBY, overregulation (in many cases not because of security), blocking it from some industrial uses, building reactors in single projects instead of building multiple at once, closing reactors, limiting research and more Nuclear can be fast cheap and safe, we just need to do it correctly. Imagine not building more HSR because HSR in California is late and over budget. We need to get our sh1t together and invest correctly into it Also it did manage to reduce fossil fuel use much faster then renewables are today doing so
@@GabrielCazorlaPersson1e fuck you bring Fukushima in there? Do you know that it was hit by a super wave before it started melting down? Or you are just playing dumb?
@@GabrielCazorlaPersson1 So we shouldn't take trains anymore after the spectacular train wreck which just killed almost 300 people in Balasore, India? Or maybe we should continue, since mile for mile, train travel might still be much safer than traveling by automobile?
This just proves one of the easiest ways to improve productivity in an economy is to reduce energy costs, it benefits all businesses & consumers. Of course reducing costs is a generational challenge. But the UK needs to be working to reduce our energy unit cost, a combination of nuclear & renewables is the only true way forward
Hopefully the first commercial fusion reactor (STEP) is a success, would definitely help some of our energy woes. Would also mean the uk had both the first commercial fissile and fusion power stations. The former being Calder hall, now sellafield
The US brilliantly destroyed NordStream Pipeline. Europeans say nothing, but either close its factories, or import the much more expensive US Gas. Europe loses, and the US wins.
Can Europe stay competitive? Certain industries like luxury goods and tourism? Almost assuredly yes. Heavy industry and consumer goods? Likely not. Cheap Russian natural gas was a key driver in the German economy. The LNG that's replacing it is from marginal suppliers that costs much more. Moreover increasing US protectionism (e.g. Inflation Reduction Act) means that European products will struggle to be competitive in the largest consumer market (it's funny how everyone thought US would go back to free trade after Trump, but Biden's been doubling and tripling down on practically every Trump era policy). Combined with Europe's demographic decline - Europe has likely peaked economically and it's all downhill from here. But don't take my word, I'm just another idiot on the internet.
Mostly from the US, Norway, and MENA region. Very little from India/China/Russia. Also US energy is "high priced" due to distance and lack of infrastructure to support it; which European leaders refused to create since they were getting cheap energy from Russia.
The greatest geopolitical revolution in the 21st century was the rise of fracked shale oil/gas in the United States, which for the first time in 50 years made the world’s largest economy not just self-sufficient in energy but the world’s largest exporter. (The 70s-imposed export ban on U.S. oil/gas wasn’t even lifted till mid-2010s!) This one fact underlines all the reversals of American foreign policy: Under Obama, pivoting away from the Middle East became obvious, b/c all those Arab petrostates went from embarrassing but invaluable protectorates to direct competitors! Under Trump and Biden, shale made old-fashioned isolationism and protectionism a live option again. Smarter EU leaders saw the competitive risk of America regaining the resource trump card over the rest of the rich world. But, whereas e.g. Japan always protected itself via diversity of supply (because it’s always been an island devoid of fuel sources), the Merkel/Macron pretense of “Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok” was all about “domesticating” Russia’s Siberian gas as an input as reliable and freely available to VW and BASF as Texas fracked gas is to GM and Dow. They banked on Putin being a corrupt gangster capitalist hedonist above all else-the rentier boss of rentier bosses. The disaster was finding out he’s actually…an idealist? And so Europe is back to where it was in the 1956 Suez Crisis: Stuck on a small, very crowded, very resource-poor peninsula; shorn of the colonies (formal and informal) that used to compensate for natural deficits at home; and totally at the mercy of America’s ability to shut off the taps, whether of LNG or finance flows. China, facing similar constraints around traditional fossil fuels, had the foresight to become a dominant first-mover in renewable energy using state-led industrial policy. The EU-more in thrall to the “Washington Consensus” of free trade and marketization than the U.S. ever was-thought they could get there via regulations and carbon pricing. Best example of where sclerosis tempered by virtue-signaling gets you: DieselGate. At the same time Tesla was ramping up and China was consolidating the battery supply chain, Deutschland AG’s solution to lower emissions was systematically destroying Europe’s urban air quality with “clean diesel”-a decade-long, continent-wide epidemic of magical thinking (and criminal conspiracy) that fell apart entirely within years of VW trying to break into the US market.
I'd argue China doesn't have the same constraints on fossil fuels Europe does. It lacks oil and gas, but not coal, and is also much less heavily burdened with environmental regulation. Europe has some coal, but it's very unpopular to use and it's generally more expensive to extract, most countries have gone through their cheaper deposits during the last 300 years. China has arguably been building out every kind of power station it can use, new coal power stations, massive hydroelectric dams that are the biggest in the world, lots of nuclear reactors including experiments using thorium which is far more abundant in China than uranium, and of course seas of solar panels and wind turbines. Europe is highly resistant to new coal as mentioned previously, it's pretty much run out of new locations for hydro, nuclear is struggling with cost overruns and an ideological split between nations over its use, and dense populations coupled with strong individual rights make renewables on the scale of China very difficult to construct. Gas was usually the path of least resistance, even if it meant more economic dependency on Russia.
Europe has the same gas shale formations that North America has. They just banned hydraulic fracturing of them. So they have chosen their fate as a declining power.
The EU is screwed longer term. First, all of the EU economies are in budget deficit, so all the carbon taxes used for EV incentives will STAY regardless of transition because the governments will need the money...they will simply be another form of taxes. The extra subsidies for LNG means no money for future bailouts for Southern Europe. The constant push towards renewable, refusal to go nuclear, and expensive LNG means energy security will ALWAYS be a hot issue as renewables will not cover the gap. For years, many in the EU criticized the US for not taking the climate seriously. Now that that the US is going full steam with renewables, it suddenly is a problem, and Germany is burning more coal than ever before. The EU simply needs to stop playing games with its markets. Renewable energy makes no sense for Northern Europe, it should go nuclear. The EU cannot compete with the US in spending money for an all EV transition, so it should go the way of hybrid cars to stay in the game of battery production but not be caught in a lithium/cobalt crunch and get rid of the EV subsidies. Also get rid of the carbon tax. Focus on making electricity CHEAP. If you make electricity CHEAP, people will switch to it. Its not enough just to make gas more expensive. Finally, people need to realize that you will NEVER get rid of oil and gas, because you need those to make all the plastics and petrochemicals. The environmental policies that the EU has taken on will kill off the industrial capacity of the EU, as fuel and material inputs will be expensive, alternatives will as expensive if not more, and businesses will find it easier to do business somewhere else as BASF is learning right now.
Many people criticise carbon capture and storage however it might be very useful for trash incinerators and chemistry industry including hydrogen to produce ammonia fertiliser. Another option for hydrogen production is electrolysis of water however that is very energy intensive.
Meanwhile in china the the interest rates has been cut again 10 basis points for each maturity. , the oil prices for finished products fell for the 6 time this year 😂😂😂😂😂😂. Europe is doom !
I think the EU should focus on setting ups its new energy system first and foremost before it tries to re-industrialise. If that means procuring solar panels, inverters and wind turbines from outside then so be it. Any subsidies to industries, in the meantime, should focus on maintaining existing assets because if they close down and fall into disrepair, restoring production capacity will end up even more expensive.
Sadly the change to renewables makes energy too expensive for industry. Longterm industry will move to Asia, Africa or South America where there is cheap energy and cheap labour. The only thing Europe had going for itself was cheap Russian energy. Now we have nothing and production is too expensive. Majority of the world is still running on fossil fuels.
@@Matruchus Thats not exacly true. What made energy expensive was the eletricity market, not renewables. And russian gas did not help a lot with that. Gas and energy are not cheap in Europe for more then 20 years now
The EU shoots themselves on both feet by sanctioning Russia and allies to the US. Result increase in fuel price from US & no fuel from Russia. This is making the EU firm not competitive & the consequences are moved abroad.
For Europe to stay competitive it needs to lower burocracy and decrease energy prices, those 2 things are crucial. Lowering energy prices could be done by using more energy efficient sources, using less gas, increase storage, and increasing baseload, mainly nuclear. Then it needs to really think outside of looking good. Because every single plans like the chips act or Net 0 industry act, besides from inferior versions of US subsidy plans, they also waste a lot. For exemple, many useless investment into hydrogen (like hydrogen pipelines and transportion network), subsidizing chips but having no clear intention on wich chips to subsidize, not creating demand for the high end chips they want, subsidizing solar pannels while still importing wafers and other components from China, same for batteries. We need to get our sh1t together, and start thinking about the whole suply chain, from consumption, to materials, not just the product
@@宋教仁-b4i In some cases its happening, France lowered regulation for new nuclear power plants, Portugal completly removed enviromental regulation for solar or wind projects below 100MW, and the Net zero industry act is less bureucratic then previous subsidy attempts for green manufacturing. Its just a really bad starting point and really slow progress
I wouldn't refer to hydrogen investments as useless. Many heavy industries see hydrogen as the easiest way to decarbonising their processes. It will also be a good solution to deal with excess electricity due to the rise of renewables. We need to see that there isn't a single answer but multiple solutions which combined will bring a solution to descarbonise
@@multienergico9299 Maybe it wasn't clear, but I also don't consider hydrogen useless. I said useless hydrogen investment, because I'm specificly talking about the hydrogen investment that is useless. But I was not refering to ALL hydrogen investment ofc, there are great uses. But their targets are impossible, having 1 hydrogen charging station every 100km on the road is stupid, and creating pipelines for hydrogen is also stupid, just not as stupid as transporting it overseas wich is also part of the plan. This costs a lot, you need 3.5 ships to carry the exact same ammount of NatGas that you would on a normal ship, and this is excluding the costs and energy lost of liquifying hydrogen and then using it again (much less efficient and multiple times more expensive then gas). For pipeline, a litle less worse, but you still need a much higher initial cost, to use the same volume, wich carries LESS hydrogen, while having higher maintenence and leaks. Therefor, transporting hydrogen, and every investment associated with is is useless. Since we want green hydrogen, wich is produced from eletricity, a much better option is to use all that money into increasing transmission lines, and produce hydrogen locally for indutry purposes, wich is multiple times cheaper and more efficient
@@joaquimbarbosa896 But this industries need the hydrogen, pipeline might be the only solution, especially as you go inland. Road charging I can agree that it might be too early for that.
I had in France, a gate with automatic closing by remote control, it broke down in 2023, as I am in "a technical desert" I returned to the gate with manual closing like my grandfather...
European leadership has been on a downward decline. Since WW2 the US has never left Germany or Europe sure the USSR was the excuse but after the fall of the USSR why does the US still have army bases open in Europe?
Loosing car industry, no construction, no IT. Where is GDP? Restaurants and intalled solar panals just not to become ice cubes in winter? Is this Europes greatest fight? To think how to sanctionize itself, or how not to do it, or what else?
This is idiotic. The Americans are the ones waging economic war with Europe. America created a wedge between Europe and Russia. One consequence is the lost competitiveness in German car and other industrial exports. Also that lack of Russian fertilizer has increased the cost of food due to more expensive options.
Biggest issue with heavy industry is not how much energy as whole costs but type of energy it uses. Most of the energy used in heavy industry is thermal because it is cheapest, most plentiful and easiest to regulate energy around. When it comes to switching to renewable energy it needs to be remembered that one kw/h of thermal energy is 3 times cheaper than one kw/h of electricity. This is because to produce one kw/h of electricity you need 3 kw/h of thermal energy to heat up the steam to propel turbines to turn generators. This is the reason steel, concrete, plastic and other materials that require primarily thermal energy in production dominate material output of heavy industries.
They didn't notice how they became something similar to USSR, shifting to a lot of government regulation and even ideologically driven war where the whole EU acts like a single political entity on the crusade of "stopping the imperialism of Russia".
The EU will lag to a degree but may be able to compensate by growing services. The UK without an industrial policy, a competitive energy policy, or an trade policy (equivalent to the US and the EU), is not going to be a viable location to produce energy intensive or cost and supply chain sensitive products. As a standalone country outside of the major power blocs of China, the USA, and the EU, it’s hard to see how the UK can compete. Mr. Farage and friends, including Russian oligarchs, got people to wreck the competitive advantage that Margaret Thatcher helped to create in the 1980s and 90s. It’s sad to see the lack of a shared vision about modern Britain.
Brexit was indeed an unmitigated disaster. Much like here in the US with tax rates to debt/wage growth, silent generation and boomers, who have largely lived the extent of their lives, totally screwed over Millennials/Gen Z in the UK. Pretty outrageous, dropped an economic bomb on them before leaving this world.
why is it that Europe's answer to every problem is to make more regulations? A heavy regulated economy is bound to stagnate. Are you trying to be USSR?
I believe there are a few gaps in your explanation. It was good overall, but what you didn't touch was the effects of producing 40% of it's solar panels on energy demand, coupled with the temporary use of coal in Europe. Mind you, the sun shines in the south of Europe during most of the year, and that is being used to their advantage. The EU has an international electricity grid that also connects renewable energy sources between different countries in the union. There is also a boost in recycling solar panels to decrease dependence on imports for it's manufacturing.
The solar panel grift already proved itself as a massive joke in Spain and it's one of the main reasons why that country has one of the highest electric prices in the world
@@ThePlayer920to be honest, altough your point could be true for the current moment (possibly because fluxitial energy), the solar power will become more visible with better batteries or hydrogen gas.
@@NS_Miata Just great, I'm talking facts and you're talking theory. "better batteries" is a huge understatement, you would need massively high capacity batteries and merely developing them would be a monumental undertaking, otherwise the grid would just turn off at night. Even if we knew how to build such batteries, they would still be in very short supply since their production would require immense amounts of rare materials that we don't have access to. More importantly, you're overlooking the fact how power is lost in transmission. You can't build power plants of any kind several hundreds or thousands of kilometers away and still manage to supply your industrial zones with enough energy. You need to build power plants where the energy is most needed and used, there's no way of going around that. In simpler terms, a solar farm in Spain couldn't possibly power the factories in Berlin. Mind you, solar energy is neither good for the environment nor self-sufficient to begin with. It's just that all the cancer victims their pollution generate are the little third world kids working at the mines and factories that produce them and all the people that rummage the landfills that the panels end up in. Oh, and everybody that drinks the groundwater contaminated by said landfills, but that's way into the future, so nobody cares. And that's without even factoring in the massive pollution their batteries would cause. If you think car batteries are an environmental hazard, you haven't seen anything yet
If only Western democracies decarbonize then your economies will collapse and you will have no money for any of the things you are talking about which means at a global level no climate gains
@@ThePlayer920 that’s bullshit. A simple google search shows that energy prices in Spain are 40% cheaper than in the Uk. You conspiracist trolls should really up your game.
EU Impose sanctions to Russia in effort to criple Russia's economy - Proceed to talk about how EU avoid recession from Russia energy blackmail.. 😂 The question is which one is have a crumble economy?
@@VodkaPandasussia, of course. It's people is even more miserable than before the beginning of this stupid war, provoked by its stupid, authocraric government. A government that is beginning to crumble, which may be devastaring for the stupid internet troll-slaves that work for them in the social networks...
They did cut off gas by claiming the turbine wasn’t functional when Siemens called BS on them. Or do you consider flows close to zero as not cutting off the gas?
EU together with Rusia mean stronger EU more powerfull then USA, and USA might lose hegemony. USA hate Nord Stream pipeline. EU and China must not getting stronger then USA. Unstable EU and Asia pasific is a must. War and tension is nesecerry for USA to keep hegemony.
The (blurry) text above the graph explains it. The *value* of aluminium imports from China has nearly doubled while the *tonnage* has increased by 20% (meaning most of the rise in value is due to price increase rather than trade volume increase). The graph shows the tonnage.
Europe has realized their dependency on Russian oil. Now they need to realize there dependency on US military for defense. With such dependency Europe can’t formulate its own foreign policy and is amendable to US hegemony ambitions.
The smart thing would've been to find and build up a viable alternative first (if such a thing even exists), and THEN cut off Russian gas, but, alas, European politicians and "intellectuals" aren't what they used to be. It's all gone downhill since the 1800s and the sad fact that America is calling the shots now should speak for itself
Europe probably lost in the medium term, but I'd argue that they've won in the long term. I think it's fair to argue that many countries are going to be losers in the next couple of years (not just Europe). Europe might be feeling this economic pain first and probably feeling it the worst... but sometimes that kick in the butt is what you need to move forward. Europe appears to be a lot more focused and as an outsider looking in (Canada), I have high expectations for Europe!
Europe has been winning constantly in long term however those numbers seem to be imaginary and dont show up in stock market gdp gdp per capita aircraft carriers tech giants etc
@@Myanmartiger921 ah yes, because when you have a dozen aircraft carriers and several tech giants, live for the common people is so much better. luckily there are no hobo's or people with debt the huge amount of debt in the USA. i rather have a good social safety net and a fair country for all then those useless stuff.
@@defintity_9951 having enough money to keep your citizens healthy and safe is not the same as being number 1 in this or that category. if the EU would become (almost) self sufficient. making as much as possible that they need. like medicines, tech, energy etc. and maybe even more than they need to trade/export and use the profit to import the few things they can't produce themselves. they wouldn't need to have dozens of Apple or Google like companies or a navy able to invade whatever country the want to to extract the resources they lack.
de escalate .. keep nato out and US out of Ukraine .. make some basic peace and get on with it .. the problem forward is trust and 2/3rds of the planet don't trust US any more so healing will be very hard
As an American, I would have more respect for the Europeans if they developed their own shale fields. Instead, they burn lignite (brown coal), the worst polluting energy source around.
The United States continues to have all the elements that won it world hegemony during WWII which has continued ever since. I certainly wish you Brits the best. It is always a tough slog for you guys. > And renewable power is a completely pointless thing when talking about economic power. Perhaps it's important long term, but short term it's an affectation of the chattering classes. You will notice that in 2022 when Germany might have doubled down on it's "cheap and abundant" renewable power, they chose to double down on fossil fuels instead.
I seem to remember somebody telling the Europeans a few years BEFORE this war that they were too dependent on Russian energy and the response was laughter....
He had all sorts of bizarre ideas, such as actually paying agreed share into NATO's budget, etc. Clearly he was a lunatic, unlike the majority of _adult_ politicians
Yes. Ant the answer should have been laughter since then and it should be now, and then the EU would not be in this deep shit. But indeed, they act stupidly.
Russia did never blackmail europe with gas and oil, they never stopped their supply of emergy tp europe (not even during the cold war) bit the eu banned the import (or made it more diffocult)
I'm from that country you mentioned. As I assume from my side - that result of blackmailing was a sort of dynamic equilibrium where at the background the russian interests silently penetrated into crutial links in chains of european economy, producing corruption and political blindness, distorting of information, diaspora and so on. This is CLASSICAL russian communists STYLE towards the many countries since 1920. And I choose to believe Thanks to Ukraine this process has stopped
Funny thing, recently was published video on RU-vid about that factories in USA are closing with incredible speed. And screen pucture of this video shows that factories from EU are moving to USA.
Some factories are closing in the US, but others are re-opening. Those closing tend to be old style goods like leather works and places that use lumber which can no longer be harvested.
@@12time12 I know. I am not saying that he is wrong, or anybody wrong. The funny thing was that there were published, almost simultaneously, two videos in one of them were discussed how fast factories are closing in USA and in other one how factories are moving yo USA. I know that in all countries every day some factories are being closed and some being opened.
Factories in Europe are doomed, and have been for more than a decade. I used to work in a heavy industry plant. Because the factory was in Europe the company had to pay a lot in taxes, social security, environmental requirements, etc. Imported Chinese goods would travel half the world and be sold cheaper next door because they paid none of that. If Europeans are not willing to scale down the welfare state to reduce taxes, and are not willing to put taxes on imports to make them the same price as European produced goods (and consequently pay more for everything they buy) then they want their factories to close.
Gas prices in Europe (TTF Gas) have come down to historical average, so all this talk about higher energy prices are just companies being greedy. Even so, Germany's decision to turn off nuclear and replace it with coal still seems bonkers. Also, you might say that Russia is the biggest climate change prevention champion, since it forced most of Europe to properly start switching to renewables)
Not exacly, demand has not yet come back to normal, one of the main reasons for the low prices. Companies are unsure of what to do because they don't know when prices will go up again, and eletricity costs remain much higher
The historical average is below $200 for TTF1000, now it's $260 and will probably get back to $300-$400 since the US has been shutting down its gas & oil rigs and the OPEC is going to cut its oil production (oil prices do correlate with gas prices).
@@joaquimbarbosa896 Why did the electricity prices rise in the first place? Everyone said it is because Russian gas was cut off and gas prices increased. Now when gas prices are back down, electricity prices remain high? Why? I strongly believe in Capitalism and believe that companies should deliver profits to the shareholders when given opportunity, but let's be real about what is causing the higher prices. Corporate profits are at an all-time high, they rose much higher than just inflation.
@@Rizhiy13 The gas we're burning rn isn't the gas we are buying but the gas we bought before. Having a market where prices are decided by the most expensive sources results in this Also less nuclear avaiable and more carbon credits on coal don't help
@@Rizhiy13 the reason for why prices haven't gone down is for three reasons. 1, we are using the gas that was bought at a premium 2, grid and energy production companies took losses in countries like the uk due to price limits. Many smaller utility companies in the uk went bankrupt. 3, due to inflation prices and wages are still high, so companies are not reducing prices
Don't bother explaining yourself to these lobotomites. The price of electricity could go up fivefold and they'd still continue to support the same politicians
China's reexport is tiny compare to India, if any. Reason is simple economics. China gets gas and oil from Eastern Parts of Russia in Asia. India gets the oil/gas that was originally sent to Europe. Much shorter distance and half discounted. China didn't get half discount. China always gets blamed in the west. India's import and reexport is very short distance. From Black sea to med and to Indian ocean. refined and resold to EU. China is from Russia's Far Eastern Ports. Go to China and all the way to South East Asia, to Indian ocean, to med/EU. Does this make sense to you? lol
The problem is that the EU countries are not sovereign states. EU officials serve the interests of the United States and not Europe and that's the problem.
Gotta love how those same EU officials greenlit and supported closer ties with Russia against US crying, and then watched it blow up in their face as Russia used it against them. EU officials "serving European interests" looks hilariously like serving Russian interests.
@@stephenjenkins7971 do you seriously think that Russia blew up its own pipe? this is ridiculous. Seymour Hersh proved that it was The US intelligence agencies with their vassals did that. the crisis in Europe benefits only the United States. they wanted to blow up the Nord stream and they did it now they will transfer the entire industry of Europe to the USA just wait.
When I gave a little thought about it after this whole Ukraine thing went down We shouted the loudest about moving away from fossil fuels the loudest in the last decade when supply was plentiful Once we really moved away from gas we found it not so fun We end up importing from north America and Australia which increased carbon footprint I don't know how much I can trust about that report of shale gas deposit in the UK I want it to be true as having production at home (and for those on the other side of channel closer to home) is still infinitely a better situation to be in Geothermal is the only fooly proof form of renewable as it's not beholden to weather or draughts
A quite substantial factory in my town moved out of my town years ago, another factory was proposed so loads of investment went in from the county but they pulled out last minute, the infrastructure was built but not the factories. I live in the uk so other factors probably took effect.
It won't be a rival at all if EU tries to antagonize it by pleasing Russia -Eastern Europe would sooner abandon Western Europe than give in to Russia imperialism.
As an economist I disagree with key elements of your interpretation: (1) Europe had higher energy prices than any other place even before the war and therefore energy intensive industries had shut down in the last decades. As a result, European GDP is far less energy price dependent than that of the US or China. There was a very detailed analysis by Clemens Fuest (a leading macroeconomist) about the energy intensity of German industry. Very few products e.g. in the chemicals sector are actually so energy price dependent that the loss of competitiveness is relevant. Ammonia was always going to be imported to Europe in the long term. That was even an explicit plan of the German government as an alternative to natural gas. This will likely not have a major impact on European industry. The plans announced to "shift" production are usually just more localized production and a result of changing supply chains. Currently, Eastern Germany is getting filled with battery gigafactories and semiconductor plants. (2) The high cost calculations were made in 2022. Natural gas is now back to the pre-war levels. And while the winter was milder than average, most winters in the last 10 years were. So it's not that much luck, but just in line with long-term weather- and climate models. (3) Inflation and the loss of purchasing power was mainly a result of Covid reopening and strained supply chains. That's why the US experience similar levels of inflation and most other places much higher levels (4) The most important point: The IRA is an attack on free trade and the market economy in general and it is likely in violation with the WTO rules. Let the US subsidize its industry and basically disable all market mechanisms. It's nothing but a loss in productivity and wealth. There was a good article in the Economist that also argued that Europe should not abandon globalization in the way the US has done. Therefore resistance against electricity subsidies is high, as it simply avoids adjustment of the economy and allocate ressources to the right industries and companies. (5) Europe is now shifting to Green energy. This will mean that more of the wealth Europe creates will stay in Europe and that Europe gets geopolitically independent. So let the US and China keep building their coal plants, while Europe is building the future.
Good additions but in regards to 5), you have to acknowledge that China installs record levels of renewable energy itself and is also a crucial supplier for i.e. solar or batteries.
@@corvus_monedula acknowledged 😉. But they are also building massive amounts of coal-fired plants. Along with nuclear. Also China and the US have bought most of their growth over the last decade with massive amounts of debt while Europe fiscally consolidated after the „debt“ crisis (which was not about debt). Today of those three areas Europe is the least indebted, while China and the US are on unsustainable paths.
Future lol? American company’s will write a check and buy it out or those company’s will relocate to usa and list on nyse. As us market is more important
Thanks for your comment and engagement. :) So as a person with am engineering and transition studies background, I disagree with your comments on several points as well. 1) Yes, Europe had higher energy prices before the war, but it managed to stay competitive despite them, not because. This trend has been getting worse for a while now (there is this great analysis by McKinsey here: www.mckinsey.com/industries/chemicals/our-insights/securing-the-competitiveness-of-the-european-chemical-industry) 2) Yes the cost calculations were made in 2022, but imho that does not change the logic that Europe has higher energy prices than in China or in the US and that will likely remain so. That is the reason why govs are (at least announcing) subsidies on energy for heavy energy intensive industry. 3) Fair enough, Ill bite on the Covid re-opening but energy inflation played a big role in that and was compounded by the energy war 4) I think this is a political disagreement that we have. I believe Bruno Lemaire said 'Europe should not be the last of the Mohicans' when it came to globalisation. I will stick to that perspective on this subject, I believe it is naive to stick to free markets when the others dont. 5) Europe is shifting to Green and (depending on how the nuclear conversation goes) to nuclear. But that means buying solar panels (and for now batteries) that we are not producing. China is leaving Europe and the US in the dirt when it comes to solar installations. So I disagree that Europe is leading on this point
What's becoming clear to me is that Europe is automatically one step behind China and the US when it comes to economic autonomy. Europe lacks the abundant resources those countries have: energy sources like oil or shale for the US, raw materials like rare Earth metals for China, an agricultural breadbasket that isn't currently an active warzone. Historically, Europe has gone overseas in order to secure its needs. While China and the US have historically gone through periods of relative isolationism, for Europe this isn't really an option. Autonomy might be desirable for political reasons, but it may end up hurting Europe's pocket book in the long run, as was shown in this video. This is a difficult trade-off, and different choices will have to be made depending on the circumstances. I don't think Europe should try to match America's race to nationalize industry, because it would undo all of the international ties that come with globalization, without there being an obvious economic benefit. Sure, some industry can be brought back to Europe with no problem, but as the Russian example shows, there will always be fields in which Europe is simply more dependent because of its relative lack of resources. Periods of deglobalization also historically come with more inter-state conflict, and it's important that we don't recreate the conditions for a World War 1. A note of optimism: Russia is a thorn in Europe's side, but with the possible exception of China and Turkey, it is probably the BIGGEST possible thorn in Europe's side. The Russian energy crisis has exposed a unique set of challenges to the European system that few other states could match. So barring those exceptions, this economic war is probably as bad as one can get.
Yeah I agree with you. The only way Europe can be independent economically, is by trading with as many nations as possible and not relaying on on country for something.
All things considered, autonomy is needed in order to be more aggressive when securing our international interests. Decoupling from the global market doesn’t mean that we would isolate but rather that we seize letting absolutely critical production be established in places that are potentially hostile to us and consequently look for ways to ensure that our interests can be met at the bottom line locally but it ALSO means using the new military we are building right now. People don’t like to talk about our armies as a tool that can further our interests for a number of reasons but I disagree because ultimately, the era we all live in wasn’t just made possible with diplomacy but also with war. Being able to pressure certain regimes into considering the consequences of going against us with our own capabilities is a tool we lack as a collective. Furthermore, imo. autonomy doesn’t mean to break our alliance with the USA ( since they are a powerful and ( at least spiritually) democratic state ) but rather to be able to act independently in certain theaters. The Middle East and Northern Africa are too obvious examples where we have time and time again been met with the reality of over relying on the USA - the civil wars in Syria or Lybia COULD have been opportunities to re-establish ourselves as a major stabilising force, instead we were overly cautious and let our enemies seize the day / let hints get utterly out of hand. The ability for a far more aggressive foreign policy is one of the most underdeveloped fields and would arguably solve many of our problems because even just having reasonable capacities and being able to demonstrate them in some of the conflicts of future decades will enable us to, for example, secure far more decisive positions concerning our trade routes - which are essential because while we can certainly procure a lot of goods, it not only wouldn’t be wise to let states like India loose interest in us but far more pressingly, we ultimately need to secure the energy and recourses that will be the backbone of AI&robotics ASAP(!) aka the modern steam engines ( meaning a technology so revolutionary and effective that whoever masters them and also broader associated policy will experience very good times in the foreseeable future at least in a strictly geopolitical economic / militaristic sense, if not even in terms of social tensions ).
@@Arcaryon thats all fine and dandy, main problem is we struggle to integrate further in order to play at that level. But maybe such crises is exactly what we need to be able to proceed in that direction. Just the army alone could benefit us so damn much. It would cost less, be bigger and stonger, the standardization would shape the economy around it all over the continent. Damn.
@@Arcaryon I agree that strategic autonomy doesn't mean abandoning our ties with the United States, and I also agree that a more aggressive foreign policy is preferable. I have long believed that Europe should be proactive in fostering stability and growth in Africa and the Middle East for the safety and development of its border states, and making allies around the Indian Ocean should China ever decide that they don't want to be friends anymore. In fact, I had written an earlier paragraph about the importance of supporting the United States when it comes to rule-based institutions, but not automatically picking sides if the USA-China rivalry gets nasty. Let them come to Europe instead. The one thing where Europe has a leg up on the United States is in the maintenance of a healthy society. This attracts immigrants from both skilled and unskilled backgrounds, which we'll need if we want to keep up in technology.
@@Qnexus7 Exactly my line of thinking. The current crisis is partially a blessing in disguise because it’s not fatal but hurts enough to force the long overdue changes.
The ability of Russia to export to either China or India is severely limited by lack of infrastructure, and while this infrastructure may be built some day, the world, meanwhile, will have moved on. The green energy (+ nuclear) transition is happening everywhere, and is only accelerating.
@@theamici people say that.... and yet the numbers tell a different story. Oil imports into China and India have skyrocketed, and the West is powerless to do anything about it...
@@mpriymak Oil imports into China/India have "skyrocketed" in relative terms. In reality they haven't even reached a fraction of oil exports to Europe prior to this war. Total Russian gas/oil exports have dropped massively. And you guys are coping to the high heavens on how that's actually a good thing.
@@airrodgers7277 That still takes years, genius. The point is that Russia nor China can do that within a timely fashion, let alone to make up for the loss of Western money anytime soon.
Europe has no future at the rate things are going. Europe did self minecraft, the place is a hell hole dumpster fire. Im amazed it hasnt blown itself up yet.
At this rate it looks like Europe is facing so many Challenges from abroad that it almost seems like it's on a pathway to a state run model once again which it's already partway in to. With declining economic competitiveness, it's running into solutions it can't just manage its way out of. The next decade is going to be hard for Europe and i think going to be a point of serious self-reflection as the golden age ends.
No it will only worsen things. It is first and foremost too expensive and secondly we would make ourselves again reliant on uranium from russia ( google " russia uranium monopoly" do understand why) So, nuclear is exactly what we DO NOT want!
@@toom2141 "No it will only worsen things" No, it wont. "It is first and foremost too expensive" That's not true. The upfront cost of nuclear power plants are higher than any other energy technology, but in the medium-long term nuclear is the cheapest there is. "and secondly we would make ourselves again reliant on uranium from russia" Nuclear power plants are INCREDIBLY efficent with uranium, and there are lots of other sources of uranium rather than russia. Not to mention multiple types of nuclear power plants dont even use uranium. "So, nuclear is exactly what we DO NOT want" No, that's ignorance. Something you have aplenty it seems.
@Random New nuclear energy is much more expensive than solar and wind. Why we should build old nuclear technology if we can use fusion for free. The sun provides us with enough energy. You can build a new nuclear power plant but you have to get an insurance for it and provide a cash deposit for the cost of waste.
@@marco21274 "New nuclear energy is much more expensive than solar and wind" As I said, the upfront cost is higher, but over time it's a lot cheaper. You have to replace solar panels every 20 years at MINIMUM. A nuclear power plant can last you a lifetime, literally. "Why we should build old nuclear technology if we can use fusion for free" What? It's like saying "why should we work if we can just get money magically?" There is no fusion, it literally doesnt exist as a source of electricity, and for free? You must have hit your head. "The sun provides us with enough energy" Last I checked, humanity wasnt capable of photosynthesis. You are dreaming if you think solar panels are going to cut it. Have a good time trying to harvest all the energy from the sun. "You can build a new nuclear power plant but you have to get an insurance for it" Okay, and? You have to get insurance for any other power plant too. "and provide a cash deposit for the cost of waste" What cost of waste? The only two major sources of waste a nuclear power plant has is water vapor and radioactive material. Water vapor is literally just released into the air, and 98% of the radioactive material are small things like gloves that can just be burned. Only a fraction of the waste actually cost any significant number to handle.
Paradise hotel 🏨🏨 peace forever 2karor eat no bathroom paradise forever 2000 years angel 😇😇 Taj mahal 70000 years all family diamond 💎 gold silver Rashmi cloth shoes Jewlery forever 👑🐎🚓🚨🚓🚨🚓🔚🔚🔚🔚🔚🔚🔚🔚🔚🔚🔚🔚🔚🔚🔚🔚🔚🔚🔚🔚🔚🔚🔚🔚
Agree, actually I think the subsidies have a negative effect. They usually shift investments from R&D to production which then breaks once the subside runs out.
EU Impose sanctions to Russia in effort to criple Russia's economy - Proceed to talk about how EU avoid recession from Russia energy blackmail.. 😂 The question is which one is have a crumble economy?
The government doesn’t have any real cards to play as throwing bad money (debt) at existing bad money just kicks the can down the road. It’s the people that suffer with reduce wages, soaring inflation and energy bills. Either way, politicians or CEOs will benefit.
EU Impose sanctions to Russia in effort to criple Russia's economy - Proceed to talk about how EU avoid recession from Russia energy blackmail.. 😂 The question is which one is have a crumble economy?
Lesson learned: making decisions for the betterment of the world without thinking it through is a double edged sword. Europe should've stayed out of this conflict. But before you guys say that I'm a putin supporter and a fascist. Please take it into consideration that I'm not picking any sides.
It was not for the betterment of the world; it was for the betterment of Europe. If the EU stayed out of the conflict, it would have destroyed any trust EE nations had in it and broke it to pieces. It would have been undeniable proof that they'd sell them to Russia if it was for their benefit.
I really wanted to move to Germany. However, I was scared to see that the cost of living is almost through the roof. I couldn't survive in this country.
Do you know who mines 1/3 of all fuel and enriches about 50% of all uranium? Also, who builds half a dozen new projects around the world, while europeans close their nuclear power plants? Well, Rosatom, that’s who. In nuclear, you cannot be truly independent of Rosatom currently. Even the US buys 20% of their fuel from Russians.
