this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2024
87 points (96.8% liked)

World News

39019 readers
2305 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen suggesting replacing Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) with U.S. exports in a phone conversation with U.S. President-elect Donald Trump on Nov. 8.

Von der Leyen spoke with Trump three days after his victory in the Nov. 5 presidential election.

Replacing Europe's supplies of Russian LNG was "one of the topics" the two leaders discussed, von der Leyen told reporters in Budapest.

. . .

The European Union imposed its first major restrictions on Russian gas, including LNG, in its 14th sanctions package in June. Russia still remains Europe's second-largest importer of LNG, after the U.S.

MBFC
Archive

top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 48 points 6 days ago (4 children)

Good move. But a better move would be to reduce reliance on LNG all together.

[–] lurch@sh.itjust.works 18 points 6 days ago

We do that in parallel just takes time.

[–] timestatic@feddit.org 10 points 6 days ago

You can work on both at the same time, but you can't abandon gas from one to the other second

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 10 points 6 days ago

You're talking about a pro-fossil fuel, anti-climate change administration.

I'm only surprised this is something negative for Putin.

[–] JeffKerman1999@sopuli.xyz 4 points 6 days ago (3 children)

I find super funny that they tried to impose sanctions to something we are 100% depending on. And instead of, you know, fixing the problem of dependency, they'll switch to a different dealer.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 13 points 6 days ago

The dependency was massively reduced just in 2022 post invasion, but you can't just go cold turkey.

[–] lurch@sh.itjust.works 10 points 6 days ago

There are multiple sources for it and they only sanction one of them.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 6 days ago

We didn't really stop importing Russian gas, there's still long-term contracts if e.g. Austria refused to accept Russian gas they'd still have to pay for it. Situation is different with Germany as there Russia broke the contract, stopped deliveries even though Germany was paying, so the country got out of the long-term contract for free.

When it comes to self-sanctioning have a look at Russia sanctioning European food exports. Not that the Faroese would ever complain, of course, they're selling tons of fish to Russia right now who can blame them their yearly GDP is like three patriot batteries.

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 22 points 6 days ago (3 children)

So, Trump just keeps on winning? How about getting rid of the gas dependency altogether? I feel like people are just making one poor choice after the other these days.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 13 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

It's simply a strategic move to cater to Trump's ego.

It's actually genius. Make Trump look good, tie US closer to Europe while unshackling from Russia.

Appealing to Trump's ego is the only way allies will survive. And if Trump ever leaves office, it's still good news if Dems get back in.

The actual logistical process of getting away from LNG is probably more monumental than is feasible in the near-term.

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Appealing to Trump's ego is the only way allies will survive.

Very bold of you to assume that the only way "allies will survive" is by the grace of the US. Shit Americans say.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)
[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I'm American, but I try not to say shit like that because it's not true.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world -3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

That in no way precludes one from being a tanky, but let's explore:

  • As if their defense wasn't heavily reliant upon the US umbrella and budget that dwarfs their capability
  • As if we didn't bail them the fuck out in WWII.
  • As if this very fucking action by the EU isn't proof of that, itself.

God, I can't believe you actually got me defending our own military industrial complex. But hey, I really hope you prove me wrong for their sake.

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee -1 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Yeah, the "me big strong American man" response. What else is new...

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Great counterpoint, buddy ;)

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee -2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Your standpoint is toxic. Doesn't deserve any real consideration.

[–] extremeboredom@lemmy.world 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Lmao of course this is all you've got in response. This is why people don't take you seriously.

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 0 points 6 days ago

Toxic masculinity doesn't deserve a real response. They'll just respond with another caveman answer. Seen it a hundred times before.

[–] SomeGuy69@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

Because replacing a heating system with a different one is expensive and a lot of pensioniers can't afford this.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 6 days ago

How about getting rid of the gas dependency altogether?

Already in the works, though for the time being (until fusion) Europe will be dependent on imports for energy and chemical feedstock but in the future that's going to be ammonia (aka transportable hydrogen) from e.g. Canada and Namibia, produced by gigantic amounts of new solar and wind installations.

Also even though fusion is slated to finally arrive in the 2030s (Max Planck is now getting into commercialisation so yes it's serious) it's probably going to be a while before it's price-competetive with renewables from places really suited for renewables, especially when we're not talking raw electricity but stuff that can be transported more easily. So those investments abroad won't be instant write-offs.

[–] Newstart@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

Russia remains second largest exporter I think they mean.