Italy has accused Germany of contributing to the latest surge in European natural gas prices by delaying the replenishment of its underground storage facilities, reopening a debate about national energy policies and their consequences for the EU’s single market.
The dispute emerged on 29 October after the European benchmark gas price briefly exceeded €100 per megawatt hour the previous day, its highest level since December 2022.
Germany’s gas storage facilities were just 61.7 per cent full, compared with almost 91 per cent in Italy and an EU average of approximately 75 per cent.
The difference has become politically sensitive because European countries purchase gas in an interconnected market, meaning decisions taken by one major consumer can influence prices paid elsewhere.
Speaking at the Montel Italian Energy Day conference in Milan, Alessandro Noce, director general for energy markets and infrastructure at Italy’s Energy Ministry, criticised Germany’s approach to preparing for winter.
According to Reuters, Noce argued that Italy had spent €300 million securing additional gas reserves, only to face higher market prices as Germany attempted to replenish its comparatively depleted stocks.
He also questioned whether Germany had delayed purchases because of preparations to privatise energy companies involved in the storage process.
Germany’s Economy Ministry did not immediately respond to the criticism.
The German government’s approach has attracted particular attention because of its role in the operations of Uniper and Securing Energy for Europe (SEFE).
Both companies became important components of Germany’s energy-security arrangements following the disruption of Russian gas supplies in 2022.
Plans concerning their future ownership have coincided with renewed questions about how Berlin balances commercial considerations against the need to maintain strategic reserves.
At the Milan conference, an energy analyst suggested that preparations for privatisation had contributed to delays in storage purchases.
That assessment has not been established as the definitive explanation for Germany’s comparatively low reserves.
Nevertheless, the resulting political dispute demonstrates the difficulties of managing energy security through a system in which national governments retain considerable discretion while their purchasing decisions affect a common market.
Europe’s latest price increase has several causes extending beyond German storage policies.
Disruptions to liquefied natural gas shipments associated with the conflict involving Iran have constrained supplies from the Middle East.
At the same time, European countries entered the summer storage-refilling period with unusually low reserves following the previous winter.
The EU Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) reported that underground gas storage was only 28 per cent full at the end of winter 2025–26.
By 21 October, that figure had risen to 75 per cent, still below historical levels.
In its latest gas-market monitoring report, ACER estimated that disruption linked to the Middle East conflict had added between €18 billion and €33 billion to Europe’s gas-import bill.
The agency also found that American liquefied natural gas accounted for roughly 30 per cent of EU gas supplies, reflecting Europe’s growing reliance on transatlantic energy imports.
Although this diversification has reduced dependence on Russian pipeline gas, it has also increased Europe’s exposure to international competition for LNG cargoes.
European buyers must compete with customers in Asia, particularly when colder weather or geopolitical disruptions increase demand.
The disagreement has implications for the European Union’s gas-storage framework.
Following the 2022 energy crisis, the EU introduced mandatory storage requirements intended to reduce the risk of supply shortages during winter.
The arrangements were subsequently extended until the end of 2027.
Under the revised rules, member states retain a 90 per cent storage-filling target but have greater flexibility over when and how it is achieved.
Countries may reach the target between 1 October and 1 December, rather than being bound to the previous 1 November deadline.
Further flexibility is available in difficult market conditions.
These provisions were designed partly to prevent governments from creating artificial demand peaks by purchasing gas simultaneously to meet rigid deadlines.
However, the present dispute suggests that delayed purchases can create another problem if several major consumers need additional supplies as winter approaches.
Germany’s current storage level does not, by itself, establish a breach of EU requirements. The applicable deadlines and permitted exemptions must also be considered.
The Italian government has meanwhile been seeking permission from the European Commission to use public funds to reduce energy costs for households and businesses.
Rome’s concerns reflect the economic consequences of sustained high gas prices, particularly for industries dependent on energy-intensive manufacturing.
Italy faces a general election expected in 2027, adding a domestic political dimension to the debate over energy subsidies.
Noce warned that prices could rise to between €150 and €180 per megawatt hour if January brings particularly cold weather.
Such an outcome remains a scenario rather than a forecast.
Energy markets will also be influenced by developments in the Middle East, LNG deliveries, industrial demand and winter temperatures.
Europe has expanded its LNG import infrastructure and diversified energy sources substantially since 2022.
However, the latest price increases demonstrate that greater import capacity does not necessarily insulate consumers from global supply disruptions.
The German–Italian dispute also exposes the limits of national energy planning within an integrated European market.
Germany’s storage policies affect its neighbours, just as decisions taken elsewhere influence the price German consumers pay.
The central question for Brussels is whether existing coordination arrangements provide sufficient incentives for governments to safeguard their own winter supplies without transferring additional costs to other member states.
With the heating season approaching, that issue is becoming an immediate economic concern rather than a theoretical dispute about European energy solidarity.
Officials declared an emergency Wednesday afternoon when a fire erupted inside a laboratory at a Department of Energy nuclear site near Aiken, South Carolina.
The post South Carolina: Fire at DOE Nuclear Site Laboratory Prompts Emergency Declaration appeared first on Breitbart.
The London-based Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) has filed a complaint with the European Ombudsman, accusing the EU Commission of maladministration over its handling of the bloc’s methane rules.
The complaint, filed on Thursday (29 October), targets two recent commission decisions.
The first is for a July recommendation that member states hold off on fining importers that are in breach of the rules until 2030.
The second is a proposal made earlier this month to delay the import rules by a year over supply worries — a decision that was made following heavy pressure from oil and gas companies, the White House and eventually by the summer, a majority of member states.
But the EIA argues that neither decision is backed up by evidence that the rules actually threaten Europe’s energy supply or push up prices.
By delaying a law already adopted in 2024, the group says, the commission is “undermining integrity of both the legislative process and the EU rule of law.”
“Rather than ensuring that the EU Methane Regulation is implemented as agreed, the commission has responded to pressure from the fossil-fuel industry by weakening enforcement and proposing further delays, without providing credible evidence to justify these decisions,” said Jack Corscadden, senior climate campaigner at EIA.
This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership
Although artificial intelligence is drawing criticism for its energy use, it's also being used by firms such as ExxonMobil and BP to unleash new energy production. The research firm Wood Mackenzie even estimates that AI could unlock 1 trillion extra barrels of oil globally by helping companies "wring substantially more oil out of producing reservoirs."
These developments are good news for consumers, but they could have a significant impact on the environment, according to an August paper published in npj Climate Action. The authors find that AI could prolong oil and gas usage, leading to a 0.47–1.8 gigaton increase in annual global carbon dioxide emissions. The lower end of that estimate is comparable to Mexico's annual carbon dioxide emissions, study co-author Holly Alpine told The Wall Street Journal. The higher end is equivalent to about 5 percent of the world's energy emissions from 2024.
The researchers say net emissions reductions cannot occur unless renewables grow four to five times faster than oil and gas. (They do note there are other ways AI could reduce the greenhouse gas footprint of the fossil fuel industry—namely, "methane leak detection or efficiency gains in power generation.")
This is an ambitious task, considering that fossil fuels account for over 80 percent of the world's energy needs and their peak usage is years away. But there are reasons to be optimistic about AI's role in accelerating the use of clean technologies.
In the same way that oil majors are using AI to find their next well, startups are utilizing the technology to unleash geothermal energy. One such company is Zanskar, which uses a combination of AI, advanced drilling methods, and geoscience to "accurately map the Earth's subsurface and develop geothermal resources that have been overlooked or considered too risky."
At the Lightning Dock project in New Mexico—which Zanskar purchased in 2024—the company's technology has reduced surface infrastructure costs by 75 percent and sped up drilling by 35 percent. Zanskar says Lightning Dock is now "home to the most productive pumped geothermal well in the U.S. and quite possibly the world." Late last year, the company discovered "Big Blind," a naturally occurring geothermal system in Nevada with the potential to power 80,000–100,000 homes with reliable carbon-free energy. In January, it closed a $115 million funding round.
Nuclear power is also benefiting from advances in AI. In August, Atomic Canyon released its Nuclear Industry Virtual Assistant with backing from Nvidia. The tool is designed to help nuclear professionals navigate technical and regulatory landscapes, which could lead to more nuclear power being developed and deployed faster. The industry has also seen a wave of investment from tech companies looking to fuel their power-hungry data centers with clean energy. Big Tech firms such as Google, meanwhile, have poured significant resources into renewable and battery storage projects to support data centers and bring more energy to the grid.
AI is here to stay. We should embrace what it is already starting to give us: a cleaner and more abundant energy future.
The post AI Isn't Just Extracting More Fossil Fuels—It's Unlocking Renewable Energy Too appeared first on Reason Magazine.
A fire at a U.S. nuclear research facility in South Carolina triggered an emergency response Wednesday, prompting temporary access restrictions and precautionary measures for workers before the emergency was lifted later that evening.
RELATED: Putin Discusses Russia-U.S. Diesel Deal with United Arab Emirates
The emergency was declared at 5:39 p.m. local time (2139 GMT) after a fire broke out at the Savannah River National Laboratory, part of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site (SRS).
The fire was later extinguished, and no contamination was reported outside the affected facility, the SRS said in a social media statement.
Authorities temporarily suspended traffic at the site’s entrances and restricted rail, river and air traffic in the surrounding area. Employees not involved in emergency response or shutdown operations were directed to shelter as a precaution.
🔥 US officials end Site Area Emergency following a fire at Savannah River National Laboratory in South Carolina
— Anadolu English (@anadoluagency) October 29, 2026
☢️ Radiological surveys detect no contamination, according to officials https://t.co/37keP3xVfb pic.twitter.com/XNhM9QU9TT
The emergency was terminated at 9:45 p.m. local time (0145 GMT Thursday), according to a subsequent update.
The Savannah River Site was established in the 1950s to produce tritium and plutonium for U.S. nuclear weapons. It is now used for environmental stewardship and cleanup, nuclear waste management and the disposition of nuclear materials, according to the Department of Energy.
Exclusive: Backbenchers voice alarm over ‘intolerable position’ faced by Miatta Fahnbulleh over oilfield decision
Furious Labour MPs have been lobbying the prime minister and chancellor not to overrule the energy secretary should she decide to block the Rosebank oilfield.
MPs say they are alarmed at the cabinet splits that have emerged over the issue after sources told the Guardian that Miatta Fahnbulleh was minded to refuse environmental permission for the field.
Continue reading...
© Photograph: Kirsty O’Connor/Treasury
© Photograph: Kirsty O’Connor/Treasury
© Photograph: Kirsty O’Connor/Treasury
Chancellor’s ‘new course’ includes a £100 one-off payment, low-carbon upgrade loans and an end to standing charges
John Healey has unveiled a package of support for households being buffeted by “global economic storms”.
“I’m setting a new course to get energy costs down in line with Europe,” the chancellor said in his maiden budget. In the long term, he hopes that changes in how Britain covers the cost of renewables and grid upgrades will “drive down all aspects of energy bills”.
Continue reading...
© Photograph: Washington Imaging/Alamy
© Photograph: Washington Imaging/Alamy
© Photograph: Washington Imaging/Alamy
The White House reposted a message solar manufacturer T1 Energy put out Wednesday promoting a Texas cell plant the company said will carry first-phase capital spending in excess of $500 million.
The post White House Highlights Solar Company Making Massive Investments in Texas appeared first on Breitbart.
On Wednesday, the Office of Energy Dominance Financing at the U.S. Department of Energy announced it had closed a $5.1 billion loan package to Alliant Energy—a utility company with over 1.5 million customers across Iowa and Wisconsin—to "lower electricity costs, expand firm power generation, and strengthen grid reliability" in the Midwestern states.
The loan package is part of the Energy Department's response to President Donald Trump's April 2025 executive order directing the agency and its secretary, Chris Wright, to ensure the nation uses "all available power generation resources" to expand and secure America's electric grid amid growing demand.
In a press release, Alliant said the 30-year loan package will finance 1.6 gigawatts of new natural gas generation, 240 megawatts of increased capacity at its existing natural gas facilities, and a gigawatt of energy storage. The loan package will also allow Alliant to add 2 billion cubic feet of liquefied natural gas storage. All told, these upgrades and additions will generate enough electricity to power 2 million homes annually, according to the Energy Department.
Alliant estimates the deal will result in "up to $1.2 billion in cumulative customer savings," as well as the creation of "more than 1,600 local jobs" through construction projects financed by the loans. Of course, some of the savings likely stem from Alliant receiving more favorable loan terms from the Energy Department than it would from an open-market lender.
A report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission outlining the deal's terms shows that the interest rate to be charged on each loan aligns with the government's borrowing costs. However, the markup on each loan will remain a fixed percentage, regardless of whether lending to Alliant becomes riskier or more expensive. Under the deal's terms, Alliant has until May 15, 2056, to repay the loan, but it is only responsible for paying interest until the first principal payment is due in 2052.
The Energy Department said the deal is the Trump administration's 10th financial close and its "sixth and seventh utility financing completed through the Energy Dominance Financing Program." As of September 30, the department had issued $132 billion in loans and guarantees through the program, including $47.5 billion announced in conditional commitments, and disbursed $53.2 billion.
While the Trump administration is taking credit for the deal, the loan is essentially a repackaging of a $3 billion conditional commitment offered by the Biden administration in 2025 as part of its last-ditch effort to spend as much taxpayer money on green projects as possible before Trump took office. Under the terms of the Joe Biden-era deal, Alliant would have used the loan to "finance multiple clean energy and battery energy storage system projects." Instead, the company will now receive an additional $2.1 billion in funding, without the climate goals the Biden administration stipulated.
Gregory Beard, director of the Office of Energy Dominance Financing, said the agency is "putting capital to work." The deal is perhaps better described as the Energy Department usurping a role that should be reserved for private-sector, institutional lenders. "This type of government involvement is only another example of the current Energy Department distorting the power generation market," says Tom Opdyke, director of energy and environmental policy at the R Street Institute.
The agency's meddling seems even more unnecessary given that Alliant's revenue is expected to grow 6.8 percent annually over the next three years, with its profit margins increasing from 18.4 percent to 22.2 percent, according to the stock research and portfolio-tracking platform Simply Wall St.
The timing of the announcement also raises some red flags. While an Alliant spokesperson tells Reason they spent "months reviewing the details and finalizing contracts" before the loan package "was finalized this week," the money is conveniently being directed to energy projects in two fairly competitive states in this year's midterm elections. The Cook Political Report has the Iowa Senate race as a toss-up and several incumbent House Republican seats in Iowa and Wisconsin leaning Democrat.
The loan package could be a ploy to boost Trump's and Republicans' favorability with the electorate in Iowa and Wisconsin by appearing to address a cost-of-living issue high on voters' list of concerns. "Even if that's the case, those things aren't going to happen by Election Day, and voters' opinions aren't likely to shift on the promise of future jobs and savings," says Opdyke. "So it might be too little, too late."
Trump is scheduled to speak this weekend in an Iowa-Wisconsin border town.
Whatever the reasoning, the loan package is effectively a subsidy for Alliant to expand its operations and grow its customer base at a lower cost. It's cronyism that enriches Alliant and disadvantages its competitors, at American taxpayers' expense.
The post Trump Hands Alliant Energy $5.1 Billion in Loans Ahead of Key Midterm Races in Iowa and Wisconsin appeared first on Reason Magazine.
The European Union is reconsidering the strategic importance of its oil-refining industry as disruptions to international energy supplies and growing defence requirements force Brussels to examine whether Europe can afford further reductions in domestic fuel production.
On 28 October, the European Commission convened its first high-level dialogue with the European refining industry, bringing together energy companies, technology providers and representatives of NATO.
The meeting was chaired jointly by Energy Commissioner Dan Jørgensen and Defence and Space Commissioner Andrius Kubilius.
Its significance extends beyond the immediate increase in fuel prices associated with the conflict in the Middle East.
Brussels is confronting a longer-term problem: Europe intends to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels, but its transport networks, industrial infrastructure and military forces remain substantially dependent on petroleum products.
The question is no longer simply how quickly the European economy can decarbonise. It is also how much refining capacity must be retained to guarantee essential fuel supplies during a geopolitical crisis.
Europe’s refining industry occupies an important position in the continent’s energy system.
According to figures published by the European Commission, EU refineries supply approximately 70 per cent of the jet fuel and 85 per cent of the diesel consumed in Europe.
These products are essential not only for civilian transport and logistics but also for military aviation, armoured vehicles and the movement of equipment.
Maintaining adequate production capacity therefore has implications for both economic activity and defence readiness.
Yet European refineries have faced difficult commercial conditions for years.
High energy costs, international competition and declining expectations for long-term fossil-fuel demand have complicated investment decisions.
Refineries require substantial capital expenditure to remain competitive, meet environmental requirements and adapt production processes.
Companies considering whether to modernise facilities must consequently assess the profitability of assets that may be expected to operate in a progressively decarbonising economy.
The resulting uncertainty creates a problem for governments seeking to retain strategically important industrial capabilities.
The immediate catalyst for the Commission’s initiative is the disruption to energy markets caused by the continuing conflict in the Middle East.
Interruptions to supply chains and uncertainty over maritime transport have increased concerns about the availability and cost of refined petroleum products.
Importing crude oil and importing finished fuels are not equivalent from a strategic perspective.
A country with domestic refining capacity can process available crude into the particular products required by its economy.
An economy heavily dependent on imported refined products is additionally exposed to processing capacity, transport availability and commercial decisions outside its jurisdiction.
The distinction becomes particularly relevant when governments must guarantee supplies of diesel and aviation fuel during an emergency.
European policymakers are therefore examining ways to improve output from existing facilities and strengthen the resilience of fuel supply chains.
However, the Commission has not announced a binding production target or a programme to reopen closed refineries.
The 28 October meeting represents the beginning of a policy discussion rather than the adoption of a new industrial strategy.
The participation of NATO gives the initiative a wider security dimension.
Military preparedness requires dependable access to energy products, including during periods when normal commercial supply chains are disrupted.
Aircraft, naval vessels, military logistics and ground operations cannot be reorganised around alternative energy sources at the same pace as some civilian activities.
Furthermore, the ability to sustain prolonged operations depends on reliable industrial production, storage, distribution and transport.
A refinery’s strategic importance may therefore exceed its immediate commercial profitability.
That raises difficult policy questions.
Governments may consider whether critical production facilities require targeted support, whether strategic stockpiles are sufficient and how supply arrangements should function during emergencies.
Any intervention would have to address competition rules, public financing and the risk of subsidising facilities that become commercially unviable.
Brussels has not abandoned its climate objectives.
The Commission has explicitly linked its refining discussions to the development of sustainable biofuels and synthetic fuels, commonly known as e-fuels.
These technologies offer potential alternatives for sectors where direct electrification remains technically difficult, including aviation.
However, their commercial development requires investment, suitable feedstocks, reliable energy supplies and sufficient demand.
Traditional refineries may be able to participate in this transition, although the technical requirements and economic viability vary between facilities.
Jørgensen said the Commission intended to work with industry on a roadmap that would reconcile domestic fuel production with Europe’s longer-term climate ambitions.
The challenge will be translating those objectives into investment decisions.
The initiative illustrates a wider adjustment in European economic policy.
In recent years, the EU has increasingly described industrial capacity as an element of economic security, rather than treating production solely as a commercial activity.
Semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, critical minerals and defence equipment have all attracted attention because of vulnerabilities in international supply chains.
Oil refining is now entering the same discussion.
The Commission must determine how to preserve sufficient capacity for essential civilian and military requirements while continuing to encourage cleaner technologies.
Those objectives are not necessarily incompatible, but they operate over different timescales and involve different commercial incentives.
For European refiners, the central question is whether governments can provide enough regulatory and investment certainty to support modernisation.
For Brussels, it is whether the energy transition can proceed without creating new strategic dependencies.
The outcome of the dialogue will indicate how the EU intends to balance its climate commitments with the industrial demands of a less predictable security environment.
Ahead of a harsh winter, the Netherlands is giving Ukraine €1.2 billion to keep the lights and water on under Russian strikes. Dutch Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation Sjoerd Sjoerdsma announced the aid during a visit to Kyiv on 28 October.
The package comes as Russia targets Ukraine’s energy system every winter. Last winter’s strikes damaged or destroyed roughly 80% of the grid, and Moscow’s next target is Ukraine’s water supply.
“Ukraine is under heavy fire and faces a very harsh winter,” Sjoerdsma said.
That, he stated, is why the government is taking additional steps now. The funds will be distributed over the next three years.
Earlier, Ukrainian President Zelenskyy said Kyiv needed $8-10 billion to get through winter, TSN reported.
Also, the Netherlands is fast-tracking €40 million this year to Ukraine’s Energy Support Fund for urgent repairs to power and water facilities, which are increasingly targeted by Russian strikes.
Another €55 million goes to in-kind support: energy equipment supplied by Dutch companies to Ukrainian partners through the Netherlands Enterprise Agency.
The money will also help build emergency reserves and train staff in the energy and water sectors.
Most of the rest goes to business. Some €136 million will go to the Partnership Facility with Ukraine and other programs, and a further €19.5 million is added to export credit insurance, on top of an existing €60 million line, to lower the risk for Dutch companies entering the Ukrainian market.
Separately, the Netherlands signed a letter of intent to contribute €10 million to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s “Industrial Ramstein” initiative, which aims to restore and modernize the production capacity of Ukrainian companies. Sjoerdsma traveled to Kyiv with Koen van Oostrom, chair of the business association VNO-NCW.
The support also covers the search for Ukrainian children abducted by Russia, through the UN, as well as housing, humanitarian aid, healthcare, demining, and the restoration of cultural heritage.
In all, the Netherlands is confirming the previously promised €878 million in non-military aid and an additional €327 million, much of it delivered through the EBRD, the World Bank, and the European Investment Bank.
The same day, President Zelenskyy said he had arrived in the Netherlands on an official visit. The two sides plan to discuss defense and economic cooperation, strengthening Ukraine’s air defenses, and further support for Ukraine. Zelenskyy is also set to have an audience with King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands.
Former Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki has launched a sharp critique against the government of Donald Tusk, accusing state-owned energy giant Orlen of drastically overcharging Polish citizens and businesses for natural gas.
Speaking on behalf of his political movement Rozwój Plus (Development Plus), Morawiecki demanded an immediate and thorough audit of Orlen’s pricing margins, claiming the company is exploiting its market position at the expense of Polish households.
According to Morawiecki, Orlen has been acquiring liquefied natural gas (LNG), largely sourced from the United States, at a rate of approximately 100 PLN per megawatt-hour (MWh). However, the former prime minister alleges that the state-controlled company is reselling that same gas to Polish consumers at inflated rates as high as 350 PLN per MWh.
Orlen kupuje gaz za ok. 100 zł/MWh, a Polakom sprzedaje nawet za 350 zł! Budżet dziurawy jak ser szwajcarski, a za nieudolność rządu znów płacą Polacy! Oto prawdziwy CPN Tuska – Ciepło Przywilejem Najbogatszych!
— Mateusz Morawiecki (@MorawieckiM) October 28, 2026
“If this is not a gigantic scandal in the Polish economy, hitting the wallets of Poles, the wallets of small and medium-sized enterprises, then I don’t know what is,” he said during an interview on Wirtualna Polska’s Morning Show, as cited by Wiadomosci, framing the pricing strategy as a failure of economic oversight by the current administration.
Prime Minister Donald Tusk and his coalition government have pushed back against the narrative of mismanagement, according to the portal. Tusk has repeatedly defended Orlen’s current corporate governance and market valuation, drawing a sharp contrast between its current operation and its performance under the previous Law and Justice (PiS) administration.
Supporters of the current government structure argue that Orlen’s pricing strategies align with broader European market realities, long-term contract structures, and the financial necessity of funding Poland’s ongoing green energy transition.
The clash over Orlen arrives at a moment of heightened political maneuvering in Poland. Morawiecki is currently in the process of formally registering a new political party stemming from his Rozwój Plus movement.
The energy price dispute serves as a central pillar in a broader opposition campaign targeting the Tusk government’s economic policies, particularly its handling of the national budget deficit and inflation.
As winter approaches, the cost of living and energy security remain highly sensitive topics for the Polish electorate, ensuring that the battle over Orlen’s balance sheets will remain at the forefront of the country’s political debate. And while Morawiecki had originally indicated he would work within his previous party, Law and Justice (PiS), that ship has clearly sailed.
The post Poland: Former PM Morawiecki blasts energy giant Orlen for inflating profits, hurting consumers appeared first on Remix News.
EU member states remain deadlocked over whether to delay the bloc’s methane rules for oil and gas importers by one year or three, with neither side able to secure a majority.
Ambassadors were due to agree the EU Council’s negotiating position this week, after a first attempt failed last week.
But the Irish presidency has had to push the vote back to 6 November again as the two camps continue to disagree on the timeline.
On the one hand, France, Spain, Finland, Denmark, Luxembourg and Portugal back the European commission’s proposal for a one-year delay.
The other group, including Italy, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Greece and Slovenia, wants three years.
And then there is a third group of countries that haven’t decided yet, or could live with either scenario.
Belgium, for example, signed a call in June for a three-year delay, but could live with the commission’s timeline, though it would refuse a pause of more than three years, which parliament’s proposed 2029 review could open the door to.
This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership
This Putin-Trump or Trump-Putin Diesel Deal is a vastly better opportunity for a ‘reset’ than the misspelled red button that Hillary Clinton presented to the Russians all while the Maidan was being orchestrated.
Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
Every once in a while the Mainstream Media can delight us by choosing to show an actual piece of reality. Of the big ones that are out there, Fox News seems to have at least three droplets of their humanity left and so it shouldn’t be too surprising that they invited Federalist editor-in-chief Mollie Hemingway onto their program Special Report to argue in favor of Trump’s potentially historic deal with Putin. The most interesting part was that she got the real ‘white hat cowboy’ treatment, seeming to offer to the audience the obviously better path; the path of peace with Russia. This type of propaganda is great for those of us who want to avert a nuclear WWIII, Yahoo!News featured a clip from the previously mentioned show under a headline that summed up things quite nicely; “Mollie Hemingway: Trump’s Russian Oil Deal Puts The American People First, “We’re Not At War With Russia“. Oh how lovey that sounds but is it really a good deal for the public of the United States?
The arguments against the deal are both weak and Globalist
The counterarguments against this diesel deal seem to be that ‘the Russians help Iran and thus they are bad’ that is to say, this deal cannot be supported because it would be against the Zionist agenda in an indirect way. The other seemed to be that this move violates the spirit, but not technicalities, of the Lindsay Graham Bill. Well, if anyone would know about violation it’s the dead senator, but was there ever a moment when the majority of Americans cried out for sanctions packages against Russia? How would spitting on the grave of Graham change anything for the worse for the normies? It wouldn’t, and no one raising kids in America cares about Graham’s legacy when they want to put food on the table for their family.
There is also the counterargument that the diesel deal ‘ betrays Ukraine’, which is a sentiment much stronger in Europe than Washington, but Project Ukraine still has plenty of support from the shadows of the American capital, just not so much from within the White House. But if we examine the arguments against having diesel come from Russia as a whole, they are all related to U.S. foreign policy and/or ‘feels’. That is to say, there don’t seem to be any arguments as to how selling diesel fuel to America could possibly make things worse for Joe Average and that is very telling. All of the arguments say it would somehow be bad for our currently disastrous American foreign policy follies.
So again, in a global sense, how exactly does regulated trade, between two countries on a voluntary basis, that brings down prices in the USA, and does not take away any jobs, cause problems for the American people? How does antagonism of the world’s largest nuclear power with the most potent hypersonic technology, that has repeatedly stated that it doesn’t want war, a problem for the American people? How does supporting Project Ukraine, do anything for the American masses? Control of Delaware is important to Americans especially the ones that live there, is control of the Donbass somehow just as vital to everyone across the 50 States?
At this point in 2026, it is very hard to build any sort of argument for any of the insane spending on foreign conflicts of luxury that have been going on since the end of the Cold War in 1991. All of these dubious expenditures that have added up to our 40 trillion+ dollars in debt were never for the benefit of the American people. It is almost like the talking heads that advocate for a blindly aggressive U.S. foreign policy actually hate the average American, because all of their proposed plans, that may kill foreigners directly, certainly punish Main Street just the same, but in a much slower and more agonizing torturous way.
Dmitriev’s ‘World of Optimism’ is one normal people want to live in
Kirill Dmitriev is convinced that economic cooperation between the USA and Russia does not have to be limited to diesel fuel. He believes that Russia’s excess of fertilizer could also be a major benefit to farmers who may finally be able to fuel up their tractors at an affordable price. Although this might be tricky, Russia has cheap energy and plenty of room in Siberia for data centers too and Dmitriev sees a lot of potential in this area. Russia even has energy exports of electricity to neighboring China, so perhaps some sort of data center collaboration could be possible, but that would require much more trust than is currently present. As we all know Dmitriev is a big believer in the building of the tunnel/bridge from Alaska to Chukotka. He has even proposed to Elon Musk a joint venture to use his Boring Company to drill from the American side. A massive friendship project is surely needed between these two countries but there are many difficulties in making the tunnel work, especially the fact that it would be located in an extremely remote and unpopulated area and the train rail/wheel standards of both nations are different.
But again if we take a look at a famous quote from Kirill Dmitriev we see a big argument in favor of the Trump-Putin Diesel Deal that many Americans could agree with:
“International collaboration between the superpowers is key for the stability of the global economy.”
Beyond just the diesel fuel now, do these words sound like something that would be of benefit to the Average American or should we listen to John McCain’s status quo musings from beyond the grave?:
“Giving peace a chance only gives Saddam Hussein more time to prepare for war on his terms, at a time of his choosing, in pursuit of ambitions that will only grow as his power to achieve them grows.”
In the above quote you could take the name Saddam Hussein and substitute it for President Putin or any other person the establishment doesn’t like. It is this dimwitted ‘defense through offense’ attitude that is destroying the U.S. economy, all while the houses outside of DC just keep getting bigger-and-bigger.
Considering the U.S. just finally and formally gave up on Iraq these words above ring true as an anti-argument for the insane foreign policy that is bankrupting what used to be, and should be today, the wealthiest country in the world. If Washington had not invested in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans, Project Ukraine, the Iran War, PNAC, Globalism, etc., wouldn’t the average gent in Pittsburgh be living much better?
In terms of economic partnership there are other options beyond what the ever optimistic Dmitriev has stated that I thought would be worth at least listing in brief:
This Putin-Trump or Trump-Putin Diesel Deal is a vastly better opportunity for a ‘reset’ than the misspelled red button that Hillary Clinton presented to the Russians all while the Maidan was being orchestrated. This deal tells the American Public that finally we need to use peace to make your lives better. We need to not waste resources antagonizing Russia, and this whole Multipolar World thing may just work out for rural Kansas too. But this is only a start, U.S. sanctions are a punishment for a crime that the Russians believe they did not commit and until those sanctions are truly gone we cannot say ‘it’s over’ but perhaps we can say ‘it’s starting’ unless all good will vanishes after the mid-term elections.
Login