Germán & Co 8/14/25 Germán & Co 8/14/25

Alaska: Trump vs the BRICS…

Executive Summary: The global energy battle is underway. Alaska is a power struggle for control over vital oil, gas, and minerals. Putin, supported by BRICS+, controls half the world's energy. Trump stands alone, weakened and seeking to salvage his reputation.

Executive Summary
The summit for control of the world’s energy is underway. Make no mistake: Alaska isn’t about peace; it’s about spoils. It’s a fight over who will dominate the planet’s energy supply, deciding who gets to open or close the taps on the oil, gas, and vital minerals that sustain the global economy. On one side is Putin, supported by a BRICS+ alliance controlling half the world’s energy resources; on the other side is Trump, isolated, vulnerable, and scrambling for a photo op that might salvage his position.

Just a Single Penny in 2025—Yet the Work Burns Bright

250,000 readers. Countless hours of independent analysis. And in 2025—just a single contribution.

We uncover the patterns where geopolitics meets energy — work powered by rigorous research, licensed data, and a commitment to clarity in an age of noise. But even the brightest flame needs fuel. Always, just a single pound, euro, yen, franc, mark, crown, or rupee is enough. Supporting us isn’t impossible — it’s what keeps the lights burning.

This keeps the imagery (“brightest flame”) but appeals to support a bit smoother and easier to read.

Support our work:
PayPal: gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com
IBAN: SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611
Swish: 076 423 90 79
Stripe: [Donation Link]

If you can’t give, share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central. It costs nothing and can carry the truth further.

https://x.com/Germantoroghio/status/1956047316273476029/photo/1

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/mexico-city-electric-dreams-valley-contradictions-germ%C3%A1n-toro-ghio-bps2f

https://www.energycentral.com/energy-biz/post/energy-and-human-rights-3-9-million-dead-3-9-million-ukrainian-corpses-XedEPmaD9fXGvFW

The times are uncertain. The need for clarity is not.

All rights are preserved to German & Co.

Germán & Co, Karlstad, Sweden | August 14, 2025

________________________________________

The clash of two worlds

Tomorrow in Anchorage, Alaska, it will not simply be two presidents facing each other; it will be two worlds. On one side, Donald Trump, physically alone in the room but carrying the still-formidable weight of the American economy; on the other, Vladimir Putin, without a formal diplomatic entourage, yet backed implicitly by a BRICS+ coalition that is no longer just an economic club, but a political, energy and technological bloc representing over 3.5 billion people — around 44% of the world’s population — and roughly 36% of global GDP at purchasing power parity.

This encounter does not happen in a vacuum. Every time an American president and a Russian leader have sat across a table — from Reykjavik in 1986 (Reagan and Gorbachev) to Helsinki in 2018 (Trump and Putin) — the world has projected excessive hopes onto them. History is stubborn: such summits rarely rewrite the chessboard. More often, they freeze it.

The difference now is that Putin does not arrive as the head of an isolated post-Soviet power, as in the early US–Russia summits. He comes armed with an alternative architecture: BRICS+, recently expanded to include Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the United Arab Emirates. This bloc jointly controls about 44% of global oil production, a large share of natural gas reserves, and a growing portion of the market for critical minerals such as lithium, cobalt, and rare earths.

The United States, though still the world’s largest single economy (nominal GDP around $27 trillion in 2024), depends on alliances to project its power. And here lies Trump’s first weakness: he arrives without a cohesive bloc. Europe keeps its distance; Japan and South Korea are focused on containing China; and in Latin America, even traditionally pro-Washington governments are signing energy agreements with Beijing or Moscow.

If this is a chessboard — and geopolitics always is — the pieces are uneven. One player has depth, a structured formation, and strategic reserves; the other, a powerful queen but scattered pawns and little coordination. In diplomacy, that imbalance can be fatal.

________________________________________

Two portraits, according to Lagarde

In a 2023 interview with Le Journal du Dimanche, European Central Bank president Christine Lagarde spoke of Putin and Trump not as a cautious diplomat might, but as someone who understands power, economics, and human psychology from the inside.

Of Vladimir Putin, she said he was “incredibly meticulous, detailed and knowledgeable”, a leader who arrives at any table with all possible data, scenarios pre-calculated, and the patience to wait for the opportune moment. In Moscow, the remark was received almost as an endorsement of his governing style: the man who never improvises, who always bides his time, and who never reveals all his cards.

On Donald Trump, Lagarde was more guarded but equally pointed. She did not call him ignorant, but described him as a “disruptor”, capable of wrong-footing allies, forcing unexpected changes, and shattering established frameworks. In Europe, the description was read more as a warning than a compliment: a president who respects no rules is as unpredictable for his friends as for his foes.

They embody opposing styles of power. Putin, the chess player calculating twenty moves ahead; Trump, the poker player ready to bluff the table into submission if he thinks the spectacle will work. One trusts in time and structure; the other, in impact and surprise.

Putin has already internalised a key fact: Trump can be seduced by theatre, by grandiose settings, by the illusion of an immediate triumph. Putin, a master of political choreography — from Red Square parades to hosting Miss Universe in Moscow — knows exactly how to build that stage so that Trump leaves feeling victorious, even if he has gained nothing concrete.

________________________________________

The origins of their strategies

Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin was born in 1952 in Leningrad, a city still scarred by the Nazi siege that killed over a million. He grew up in a kommunalka — a communal flat in a poor neighbourhood, sharing a kitchen and bathroom with multiple families. Street fights were part of everyday life. As a teenager, he found in judo and sambo not just a physical discipline, but a philosophy: patience, control, and using the opponent’s strength against him. It is not always the strongest who wins, but the one who waits best — a principle that would define his politics.

By the late 1980s, as a KGB officer posted to Dresden, East Germany, he witnessed the collapse of the GDR and the Soviet retreat. That experience, he has said, taught him that “when the state loses control, the street shows no mercy” — and that in politics, weakness is punished instantly. That security-first mentality has shaped his entire career, from the Chechen wars to the annexation of Crimea.

Donald John Trump was born in 1946 in Queens, New York, into a family already wealthy from real estate. His father, Fred Trump, was a property magnate. Donald grew up without knowing scarcity; biographers say he paid his elder sister to do his homework. He was not a disciplined reader or student, but quickly understood the value of image and self-promotion.

In the 1980s and 90s, he built a business empire of casinos, hotels and golf courses — often financed through heavy debt. Atlantic City was his laboratory: flashy investments, golden branding, spectacular openings… and an almost surgical ability to sell success even when the accounts were bleeding. His Miss Universe venture took him to Moscow in 2013, blending glamour, politics, and contact with Russia’s elite. Whether it directly influenced his relationship with Putin is unproven, but it did place him in circles close to the Kremlin.

Two lives, two psychologies. Putin believes in structure, intelligence gathering, and patience; Trump in branding, spectacle, and the quick win. In Anchorage, one will carry the game in his head; the other, in tomorrow’s headlines.

________________________________________

A wounded president

Trump arrives in Alaska with a broken promise hanging over him: his much-trumpeted “24-hour peace” for Ukraine. It was one of his most repeated campaign lines — a near-messianic claim in the eyes of supporters. But no ceasefire came; the war dragged on, and the idea now looks more like a slogan than a plan.

To that injury comes a more recent, deeper one: the disaster in the Middle East. In mid-2025, Israel suffered one of the most severe military blows in its history. Its forces were caught off-guard by a coalition of militias and state units, which, within weeks, dismantled key parts of its advanced defence network.

Trump authorised a joint US-Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear and military facilities. It was billed as a decisive, surgical operation. The reality, as later leaks showed, was far less dramatic: damage was limited, critical facilities were only knocked offline for months, and Iran’s retaliation was swift and precise.

Tehran not only repelled the strike but launched missiles at US bases in the region — and Washington chose not to respond militarily. The White House called it “strategic prudence”; critics called it “fear”. In Europe and Asia, allies took note: American deterrence no longer seemed automatic. In Moscow, Putin filed it neatly into his political algorithms.

For Putin, Anchorage will not be a meeting with Trump the negotiator, but Trump the man who has lost two narrative battles in under a year, who lacks a united bloc behind him, and who badly needs a symbolic win to sell to his base. It is fertile ground for Kremlin power plays.

________________________________________

The energy war

Strip away the public diplomacy, and Alaska is about energy. It's not just who produces it, but who can control its flow, interrupt it, or weaponise it.

The BRICS+ bloc — now including Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Iran, the UAE, Egypt and Ethiopia — holds unprecedented leverage:

44% of global oil output (Saudi Arabia, Russia and Iran are among the top five producers)
Over 50% of proven gas reserves (dominated by Russia, Iran, Qatar — the latter in talks to join)
Around 70% of known reserves of critical minerals essential for the energy transition (lithium from Brazil, cobalt from South Africa, rare earths from China)

The danger is not just production, but route control:

Strait of Hormuz (Iran, Oman) — 20% of world oil passes here
Suez Canal (Egypt) — vital for Middle East-Europe flows
Northern Sea Route (Russia) — shorter Asia–Europe link as Arctic ice retreats
Strait of Malacca — critical for oil bound for China, Japan, South Korea

The precedent is 1973: OPEC’s oil embargo paralysed economies. Today, BRICS+ could act more subtly — reducing output, switching contracts to non-dollar currencies, or delaying shipments to apply pressure.

The US, even as a net energy exporter, cannot dictate these choke points. Trump knows this. Putin knows it. In private, this will be the true subject in Anchorage: who writes the rules for the next decade of global energy.

________________________________________

Cards on the table

Putin’s cards:

Energy leverage — production shifts, alternative contracts, selective LNG offers to EU states willing to break with Washington.
Time in Ukraine — keeping the war frozen but appearing open to dialogue.
Limited security cooperation — small gestures on terrorism or narcotics, enough for Trump to claim a win.
Theatre — controlled optics designed to flatter Trump’s ego.

Trump’s cards:

Financial flexibility — hints at easing sanctions if progress is shown.
Symbolic recognition — offering Russia a seat, even as observer, in certain forums.
Anti-China rhetoric — subtle positioning of Russia as a partial counterweight to Beijing.
Trade concessions — easing restrictions on goods vital to Russian industry.

Trump’s problem: his room for manoeuvre is narrow. Any visible concession to Putin will be political ammunition for his domestic rivals. Putin will exploit that.

________________________________________

Possible scenarios

Symbolic deal — joint declaration on peace and energy stability, no specifics. Putin gains legitimacy; Trump gains headlines.
Photo without substance — smiles, strolls, “good chemistry” talk. Trump sells connection; Putin sells indispensability.
Secret resource talks — off-camera deals on energy supply and sanctions. Risk of leaks damaging Trump.
Controlled clash — sharp words in public, quiet channels open in private. Both leaders strengthen home narratives.

________________________________________

The post-summit spin

Trump will proclaim “a tremendous, historic success” within minutes, using superlatives and avoiding detail. His aim: convince supporters of unique negotiating talent.

Putin will be more measured. State media will frame the meeting as proof that, sanctions or no sanctions, Washington still needs Moscow. Carefully placed stories will suggest Trump sought the meeting, not vice versa.

The narratives will be mutually incompatible — but coexist. The truth will be buried beneath layers of propaganda.

________________________________________

Spassky and Fischer in Alaska

In 1972, Boris Spassky and Bobby Fischer fought a chess match in Reykjavik that was sold as a Cold War showdown. It changed nothing geopolitically.

Anchorage risks being the same: theatre on a confined board. Energy will still be contested, Ukraine will still be at war, and the balance of power will still turn on pipelines, contracts, and quiet alliances rather than handshakes.

________________________________________

Epilogue: A midsummer dream in the Arctic

In Alaska’s political theatre, both men are living their own Shakespeare. It is A Midsummer Night’s Dream, but under the pale Arctic sun. Both need the photo: Trump, because he could not deliver peace in 24 hours; Putin, because he could not win the war in nearly three years.

Here, image trumps substance. The setting is perfect: a remote city, a round table, global cameras, and two men who must project strength despite the wear. Neither will truly win, but neither can afford to look like the loser. The summit will end, like Shakespeare’s comedy, without immediate tragedy… and without real resolution. The audience will leave believing they saw something decisive. The actors, knowing it was only theatre, will prepare for the next act.

________________________________________

The Author:

“enriching our understanding of history beyond traditional battlefields and royal courts,” praising the way his journeys move from the discomfort of a Moscow hotel to the exhilaration of the Nicaraguan jungle... Juan Forch

Germán Toro Ghio ranks among the most influential voices in the global energy sector, his work reaching over a quarter of a million readers worldwide. As a recognised Expert in The Energy Collective and a featured contributor in Energy Central’s Power Perspectives™ series, he is known for translating complex geopolitical and market shifts into clear, timely insights. As CEO of Germán & Co., he has spent more than three decades navigating the energy industry—predicting its future with precision—while holding leadership roles such as Corporate Vice-President of Communications for AES Dominicana, where he led innovative strategies for natural gas promotion and regional energy integration.

Before entering the energy world, Germán’s career bridged culture, literature, and diplomacy. He served as Executive Secretary for the Forum of Culture Ministers of Latin America and the Caribbean, authored the project document and prologue for the UNDP’s Colombia en el Planeta alongside William Ospina and the legendary theatre group La Candelaria, and worked closely with Nicaraguan poet and priest Ernesto Cardenal. He championed the special editions of La insurrección solitaria by Carlos Martínez Rivas, under the sponsorship of Octavio Paz, laureate of both the Nobel Prize in Literature and the Miguel de Cervantes Prize.

An accomplished author, Germán has published Nicaragua Year 5—a celebrated work of documentary photography praised in Lund University’s catalogue of new books—and The Non Man’s Land and Other Tales. He has overseen dozens of literary editions, including Joven arte dominicano, promoted by Casa de Teatro in Santo Domingo and distributed to leading universities across the world.

Chilean filmmaker, writer, and political scientist Juan Forch—renowned for his role in the historic 1990 “NO” campaign, later dramatized in the Oscar-nominated film No starring Gael García Bernal—has described Germán’s narratives as “enriching our understanding of history beyond traditional battlefields and royal courts,” praising the way his journeys move from the discomfort of a Moscow hotel to the exhilaration of the Nicaraguan jungle.

________________________________________

Germán Toro Ghío leads Karlstad-based Germán Toro Ghío Strategic Energy Consulting, advising on African energy transitions.

In December 2023, Energy Central recognized outstanding contributors within the Energy & Sustainability Network during the 'Top Voices' event. The recipients of this honor were highlighted in six articles, showcasing the acknowledgment from the community. The platform facilitates professionals in disseminating their work, engaging with peers, and collaborating with industry influencers. Congratulations are extended to the 2023 Top Voices: David Hunt, Germán Toro Ghio, Schalk Cloete, and Dan Yurman for their exemplary demonstration of expertise. - Matt Chester, Energy Central

**You can't possibly deny me...**

**Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…**

Donate

Germán & Co 8/14/25 Germán & Co 8/14/25

Ukraine: A Thousand Times Betrayed, But Not in Alaska?

In 1932, Walter Duranty of The New York Times received journalism’s top award for dispatches from Moscow that echoed Stalin’s propaganda while Ukraine suffered famine. The Holodomor, a man-made famine in 1932–33, caused millions of deaths through grain requisitions, sealed borders, and repression. Despite this, the Times claimed there was “no actual starvation.” The award remains, but the deaths do not.

Executive Summary

Pulitzer Prize for genocide denial.
Three point nine million dead.
Say it again — three point nine million.

________________________________________
In 1932, Walter Duranty of The New York Times was awarded journalism’s highest honor for his Moscow dispatches — reports that echoed Stalin’s talking points while Ukraine starved. The Holodomor, a man-made famine of 1932–33, claimed millions of lives through forced grain requisitions, sealed borders, and targeted repression. Yet in the pages of the Times, readers were assured there was “no actual starvation.” The medal remains. The deaths remain.
Others saw what Duranty refused to print. Welsh journalist Gareth Jones walked the backroads of Ukraine in March 1933, recording scenes of skeletal villagers and silent, emptied towns. Malcolm Muggeridge filed dispatches from the North Caucasus describing “a famine of the most colossal proportions.” Both were blacklisted by the Soviets for telling the truth. Duranty, by contrast, remained in favor with Moscow — securing rare interviews with Stalin — and dismissed their accounts as “exaggerations.” Historians now agree: his silence and distortions aided a cover-up of one of the 20th century’s greatest crimes. The Pulitzer Board has reviewed appeals to rescind his prize, most notably in 2003, but has refused each time, arguing that his award preceded the famine reports — a technicality critics say is an alibi for complicity.
________________________________________
Sources: Applebaum, Anne. Red Famine: Stalin’s War on Ukraine. Doubleday, 2017. Snyder, Timothy. Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin. Basic Books, 2010. Pulitzer Prizes official statement, November 21, 2003 — pulitzer.org. Gareth Jones' diary extracts, March 1933 — University of Cambridge Archives. New York Times internal review of Duranty’s reporting, 2003.

Just a Single Penny in 2025—Yet the Work Burns Bright

250,000 readers. Countless hours of independent analysis. And in 2025—just a single contribution.

This keeps the imagery (“brightest flame”) but appeals to support a bit smoother and easier to read.

Support our work:
PayPal: gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com
IBAN: SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611
Swish: 076 423 90 79
Stripe: [Donation Link]

If you can’t give, share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central. It costs nothing and can carry the truth further.

https://x.com/Germantoroghio/status/1955869879967604816

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/germ%C3%A1n-toro-ghio-6b1853242_pulitzer-prize-for-denying-genocide-39-activity-7361614954233307137-Wy0l?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAADxILSUBt02qlesQLQfoPztburmXuxyvJik

https://www.energycentral.com/energy-biz/post/energy-and-human-rights-3-9-million-dead-3-9-million-ukrainian-corpses-XedEPmaD9fXGvFW

The times are uncertain. The need for clarity is not.

Germán & Co, Karlstad, Sweden | August 14, 2025

________________________________________

3.9 million dead… 3.9 million Ukrainian corpses… that's the arithmetic of betrayal… that's the price tag on Western silence… 28,000 dying daily in June 1933… every single day… twenty-eight thousand mothers, fathers, children, babies at the breast… starved to death while Duranty typed his lies in his warm Moscow hotel… "No famine here"… Pulitzer Prize for genocide denial… 3.9 million… say it again… 3.9 million… let it rot in your mouth like the corpses rotted in Ukrainian fields… because that's where it started… the betrayal… the pattern… the template for every abandonment that followed…

Ukraine… betrayed a thousand times… more… if you count the small ones, the quiet ones, the ones written in blood on frozen fields where 3.9 million starved to death while the world looked away… The Holodomor… 1932, 1933… Stalin's masterpiece of murder… 28,000 Ukrainians dying daily at the peak… June 1933… the month when hell had a name and it was Ukraine…

They took the grain… all of it… every last kernel… and when the barns were empty, when children's bellies swelled like drums, when mothers boiled bark and leather to keep the mouth busy… the West sent journalists… Duranty with his clean Moscow hotel sheets… writing to The New York Times that "there is no famine"… Pulitzer Prize for selling souls… while the dead piled up like cordwood in village squares…

________________________________________

And now… now they want to do it again… different uniform, same betrayal… In icy Alaska, where the frost is more eternal than electoral promises, a meeting worthy of Nikolai Gogol's pen is scheduled for Friday, August 15: Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, face to face — or at least hat to hat. The fantasy script calls for Putin to play 18 holes on Arctic ice — an exploit more fitting for Dead Souls than for a press briefing — and for Trump to dash from the sauna straight into the eternal snow, like a polar bear with a Mar-a-Lago tan.

But the White House's combative press secretary, Caroline Levitt, has already poured cold water on the excitement: "Don't expect miracles… or selfies." In Moscow, however, the cultured and unflappable Kremlin spokesman, Dmitry Sergeyevich Peskov, has struck a conspiratorial tone: his president isn't bringing caviar to Trump — "not even caviar dressed up like Miss Universe" — but something far more "strategic": a license to build a brand-new Trump Tower in territories that once belonged to the late Soviet Empire. "A reminder," Peskov added, "so that in Copenhagen they don't forget the mood swings of their colleague and friend Donald."

Meanwhile in London, the betting houses adjusted their odds: this meeting has less chance of happening than seeing Trump's promise to end the war in Ukraine "in a matter of seconds" come true.

From the surreal to the earthly: Ukraine, betrayed and annihilated, reduced to a chessboard where the pieces move to the rhythm of agreements never signed and smiles that exist only for the camera.

Yeah… they'll meet… the two strongmen… on ice thicker than their skulls… and they'll carve up Ukraine like it's 1945 again… Yalta all over again… Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin… dividing Europe without a single Ukrainian at the table… Now it's Trump and Putin… same game, different costumes… And where's Zelenskyy?… Nowhere… not invited to his funeral…

The pattern never changes… only the faces… Only the excuses… Budapest Memorandum, 1994… "Give up your nukes, we'll protect you"… Sure… 2014 comes, Crimea's gone, and the "protectors" send tweets… Now 2025… Alaska summit… and Ukraine gets fed to the bear again… 400,000 Ukrainian dead… but hey… peace in our time, right?…

________________________________________

Europe?… Oh, they're tired… war fatigue they call it… 65% of Czechs want Ukraine to just give up territory and call it peace… Gas in the winter trumps Ukrainian blood every time… Always has… The Holodomor taught them nothing… Suffering is fine as long as it's not theirs…

They'll shake hands in Alaska… Putin with his cold fish eyes, Trump with his salesman's grin… And Ukraine?… Ukraine bleeds in the snow while they toast to "strategic stability"… The kind where corpses stay quiet and the living know their place…

Because that's the lesson of Ukraine… a thousand betrayals and counting… From Stalin's grain quotas to Trump's "art of the deal"… Different century, same sacrifice… Ukraine always the offering on the altar of great power politics… Always expendable… Always alone…

The ground's the same… back then it swallowed 3.9 million, now it's swallowing more… Mariupol, Bucha, Izium… graves on top of graves… And the ground, it's always hungry… it'll take what you give it, and the world's been feeding it Ukrainians for a century…

They'll call it peace… this Alaska deal… Peace like a graveyard's peaceful… Quiet… Final… With Ukraine carved up like a Christmas goose and served on a platter marked "strategic compromise"… The Holodomor was strategic too… Strategic starvation… Strategic denial… Strategic mass murder…

Different decade… same appetite for Ukrainian flesh…

But not in Alaska… No… In Alaska, they'll sign the papers and smile for the cameras… The real betrayal already happened… In 1932… In 1945… In 1994… In 2014… This is just the latest instalment… The newest chapter in the book of Ukrainian abandonment…

A thousand betrayals… And counting…

Europe… weak… trembling… their hands loose on that $750 billion energy deal slipping through their fingers… They need those coins… Need them more than Ukrainian blood… more than Ukrainian children buried under rubble… The arithmetic's simple… 3.9 million starved to death means nothing when there's gas flowing through the pipelines… means nothing when the heating bills come due in Berlin, Paris, Rome…

They shake… these Europeans… not from cold, but from fear… fear of losing their Russian energy lifeline… 750 billion reasons to look the other way… to call for "restraint on both sides"… to whisper about "territorial compromises"… The same Europe that stood by while Duranty wrote his lies… the same Europe that carved up Ukraine at Yalta… now they count their euros while Ukrainians count their dead…

"Strategic autonomy", they call it… this dependency… this addiction to Russian gas that makes them weak, makes them complicit, makes them whores to Putin's energy empire… And when push comes to shove… when the real choice comes… between Ukrainian sovereignty and European heating bills… they'll choose the warmth every time… Every single time…

________________________________________

EPILOGUE: THE HUMAN CONDITION

You want to know the truth?… The real truth?… Here it is… bleeding and naked as a newborn in the snow…

Humans are shit… All of them… Every last one… They don't betray Ukraine because they're evil… no… that would be too simple… too clean… They betray because betrayal is what they are… in their bones, in their blood, in their marrow… It's not a choice… it's their nature… like dogs pissing on trees, like vultures feeding on corpses…

Look at them… these "civilized" Europeans… these "democratic" Americans… these "Christian" nations… When the Holodomor was happening… when 28,000 Ukrainians were dying every day… they knew… Oh, they knew… Duranty told them in his private cables… the diplomats whispered it over cocktails… the grain traders counted the profits from Ukrainian corpses… And what did they do?… They looked away… because it was convenient… because it didn't touch them… because Ukrainian suffering paid their bills…

That's humanity for you… That's the species… They'll watch 3.9 million people starve and call it "collectivization"… They'll break every promise they make and call it "realpolitik"… They'll sell their own mothers for thirty pieces of silver and call it "pragmatism"…

You think it's different now?… You think they've learned?… You think Alaska will be different?… Ha!… The same creatures who applauded Stalin while Ukraine starved… who carved up Europe at Yalta like a Christmas goose… who promised nuclear protection and delivered Twitter condolences… these same maggots will smile and shake hands in Alaska while Ukrainian cities burn…

Because that's what they do… That's what they are… Betrayal isn't the exception… It's the rule… It's the law… It's the only law that matters… The strong eat the weak and call it progress… The rich devour the poor and call it economics… The living feast on the dead and call it history…

Ukraine?… Ukraine is just the menu… Always has been… Always will be… A thousand betrayals and counting because humans can't stop themselves… because every generation thinks it's different… thinks it's better… says it won't repeat the sins of the fathers… And every generation proves it's the same… exactly as vile… exactly as hungry for other people's blood…

The Holodomor wasn't an aberration… it was revelation… 3.9 million dead to show the world what humans are when nobody's watching… when there's profit to be made… when there's comfort to be preserved… And Alaska?… Alaska is just the latest instalment… the newest chapter in the same old book… the book of human hunger… human greed… human indifference to human suffering…

So don't weep for Ukraine… Weep for the species… Weep for what we are… what we've always been… what we'll always be… Creatures who make promises to be broken… who build trust to be shattered… who create hope to be crushed…

A thousand betrayals… And counting… Because that's the only number that matters… The only number that will ever matter… Until the last human draws the last breath… and there's nobody left to betray…

That's the truth… That's the only truth… The rest are lies we tell ourselves to sleep at night…

________________________________________

The Author:

“enriching our understanding of history beyond traditional battlefields and royal courts,” praising the way his journeys move from the discomfort of a Moscow hotel to the exhilaration of the Nicaraguan jungle... Juan Forch

________________________________________

Germán Toro Ghío leads Karlstad-based Germán Toro Ghío Strategic Energy Consulting, advising on African energy transitions.

Germán & Co 8/12/25 Germán & Co 8/12/25

The $750 Billion Trap: How Europe Paid to Escape Russia, Only to Watch Putin Win Ukraine…

The Trump over the Bygg Sting EU.

Executive Summary
The $750 Billion Trap: Europe’s Energy Escape Funds Putin’s Territorial Win Trump’s $750 billion European energy deal sets the stage for his Alaska summit with Putin. After securing Europe’s massive energy purchases to reduce reliance on Russia, Trump suggests legitimizing Russian territorial gains in Ukraine with a “freeze” agreement.
The Trap: Europe spent $750 billion on U.S. energy to avoid Russian coercion, yet Trump now proposes validating the Russian aggression that triggered Europe’s energy crisis. Oil prices could drop 10-20% with ceasefire news, but strategic contradictions persist.
The Pattern: Trump extracts significant economic commitments from allies, leveraging them to push controversial policies, framing opposition as preferring “conflict over cooperation.”
Warning: Nations negotiating tariffs with Trump should heed Europe’s experience—meeting Trump’s demands doesn’t ensure influence over his decisions and often funds their own strategic setbacks
Bottom Line: Europe’s energy investments may have unintentionally supported the legitimization of the very Russian aggression they aimed to avoid.

Not a Single Penny Has Found Its Way into Our Piggy Bank in 2025

“Quarter of a million eyes have now landed on our work at Energy Central—a milestone that still feels electric. I can still see Matt Chester’s message popping up: “Fancy sharing your piece on our platform?” One word—absolutely—set the spark. Today, that spark has become a blazing beacon. Cheers, Matt, for opening the door; here’s to the next 250 k…

Under the clear-eyed wisdom of Aristotle—who in Nicomachean Ethics celebrated generosity as the art of giving just the right amount, to the right cause, at the perfect moment—we declare with steadfast resolve: throughout all of 2025, not one penny of support has graced our coffers.

In a world swirling with restless shadows—where every headline quivers beneath veiled agendas—a steadfast beacon still shines: independent analysis. We do more than relay facts; we wrestle truth from the chaos, charting the hidden crossroads where geopolitics and energy entwine. Our pens are honed by passion; our screens blaze with relentless inquiry.

Yet even the fiercest flame flickers without fresh breath. Inflation’s chill creeps into every crevice. Platforms surge and crash like wild tides. Every article, every map, every piercing insight must battle through the noise to reach the minds that hunger for clarity. We wield licensed tools, striking visuals, and elite research—but even the mightiest arsenal can’t hold the line alone.

This is our rallying cry to you:

Hoist our banner—like, repost, share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central: it costs nothing but echoes through halls of influence.

Lend your strength—if you can, please fuel the mission that keeps democracy honest and our energy future bright:

PayPal: gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com

IBAN: SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611

Swish: 076 423 90 79

Stripe: [Donation Link]

Every gift, no matter the size, fans the spark of independent thought into a roaring blaze. You’re not just donating—you’re empowering a truth-seeker in a world starved for clarity.

Remember, your donations are tax-deductible. Please check with your tax advisor for details.

Join us. Keep the flame burning. Light the way forward—in these darkening times, your support is the beacon guiding us all.

https://x.com/Germantoroghio/status/1955363866554274276

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/750-billion-trap-how-europe-paid-escape-russia-only-watch-toro-ghio-xcpce

https://www.energycentral.com/energy-biz/post/the-750-billion-trap-how-europe-paid-to-escape-russia-only-to-watch-Aa7BYu2jyAh8iFO

"1,000+ reads in 24 hours. The Absolute Trend: USELESS IN THE DARK—a thought-provoking piece inspired by the philosopher and visionary, almost a fortune-teller of the energy world, Andrés Gluski, CEO & President of AES. Energy isn’t ‘green’ or ‘cheap’ if it’s not available when needed. Resilience, storage, and smart grids are the true game-changers.

AES people should take a more active role in supporting the extraordinary ideas of their President.
**https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/useless-dark-germ%C3%A1n-toro-ghio-hhlmf/?trackingId=JvhOZkM5bvlnixI16VGh%2Fg%3D%3D**
**https://www.energycentral.com/energy-biz/post/kenya-s-geothermal-ascent-the-iceland-of-africa-powers-a-green-qJ1HKEVLGRHSc7w**
#EnergyTransition #GridResilience #EnergyStorage

Germán & Co, Karlstad, Sweden | August 12, 2025

________________________________________

Timeline: Key Events Ahead of the Alaska Summit

Date Event Why It Matters June 2025 Trump secures $750 billion European energy deal Europe commits to massive U.S. energy purchases to escape Russian dependence Late July 2025 Steve Witkoff meets Putin in Moscow Opens U.S.–Russia backchannel ahead of the summit Early August 2025 Leaks about territorial "swap"—Russia keeps ~20% of Ukraine for ceasefire Provokes immediate backlash from Kyiv and EU Aug 8, 2025 EU and Nordic-Baltic nations publicly reject peace built on territorial conquest Signals unified resistance Aug 9, 2025 Trump admin allows Nvidia/AMD chip sales to China under 15% revenue-sharing Marks dramatic shift in U.S. export policy Aug 10, 2025 China encourages domestic chip use yet still needs CUDA ecosystem Beijing selectively accepts U.S. policy turn Aug 12, 2025 Trump–Putin Alaska summit occurs Likely announcement of ceasefire/freeze with energy and tech impacts.

________________________________________

Introduction: The $750 Billion Energy Prelude

Fresh off securing a massive $750 billion energy purchase agreement from European partners, Donald Trump has moved quickly to his next geopolitical transaction: offering to "give away" Ukrainian territory to Vladimir Putin in exchange for a ceasefire. The sequence reveals the cold calculus of transactional diplomacy—first, extract maximum energy dollars from allies, then trade away their strategic security interests.

The European energy deal, encompassing long-term LNG contracts, infrastructure investments, and expanded U.S. energy imports, was pitched as a win-win: Europe diversifies away from Russian energy dependence while America becomes their primary supplier. European leaders, desperate to secure energy security after years of Russian supply volatility, committed to unprecedented energy purchases from U.S. producers.

But within weeks, those same leaders discovered the hidden cost of their $750 billion energy commitment: Trump's willingness to negotiate away Ukrainian sovereignty—the very issue that drove Europe's energy crisis in the first place.

________________________________________

The Alaska Gambit: Territory for "Peace"

Now, as Trump prepares for his Alaska summit with Putin, the bitter irony emerges. The $750 billion in European energy purchases has given him the political and economic capital to pursue his next transaction: a proposed "territorial exchange" that would freeze the Ukraine war with Russia controlling roughly 20% of Ukrainian land. The same conflict forced Europe to seek alternative energy sources at premium prices.

The brutal calculation is stark: having secured Europe's energy dollars, Trump can now afford to ignore European strategic objections. Europeans paid top dollar to escape Russian energy dependence, only to watch Trump potentially legitimize the very aggression that created their energy crisis.

Leaks suggest Trump's team pitched a ceasefire that accepts Russia's control over nearly 20% of Ukrainian territory—Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson—in return for a pause in hostilities. Ukraine rejects this constitutional breach; Europe rails against rewarding aggressive conquest [1]. Russian signals, meanwhile, flirt with maximalist demands and avoid retreat grudgingly [2].

________________________________________

Constraints to Acceptance:

Legal and Political Ukraine's constitution forbids surrendering land. Public opinion favours ending the war, not surrendering territory [3].

Alliance Integrity EU and NATO argue that legitimizing force invites further aggression. Denmark and Nordic partners have publicly stated as much [4].

Enforcement Reality Ceasefires without monitoring, buffers, or sanctions reversal thresholds are tactically flimsy. Reports show leaks offer no such architecture [5].

________________________________________

The AI Chip Corridor: Tech for Toll

In parallel, Trump reset export restrictions: Nvidia and AMD may sell advanced AI chips to China under a new deal—if the U.S. takes a 15% share of Chinese orders [6]. Legal experts warn this risks eroding the export-control regime; security analysts note it turns "redline tech" into a transactional toll booth [6]. Markets responded with mild concern over margins; Beijing hedges by urging domestic alternatives but still values CUDA alignment [7].

________________________________________

Energy Security vs. Territorial Security

This sequence exposes a fundamental contradiction in transactional diplomacy. Europe spent $750 billion on U.S. energy to reduce dependence on an aggressive Russia, yet Trump's proposed Alaska deal would reward that same Russian aggression with territorial gains. European leaders find themselves having paid for energy security while watching their geopolitical security interests get traded away.

The strategic energy play reveals cold logic:

Secure massive energy contracts ($750 billion from Europe desperate for Russian alternatives)
Use that economic leverage for political capital (Europe invested, now they're committed)
Negotiate away the source of their energy crisis (legitimize Russian aggression in Ukraine)
Force Europe to accept both outcomes (they've already paid, and opposing "peace" looks unreasonable)

________________________________________

Why Play a Losing Hand?

Why push a proposal Ukraine and Europe will reject? The answer lies in domestic optics and the $750 billion cushion. Trump projects himself as the lone peace bargainer betrayed by ideological rigidness. Even failure becomes a victory frame ("I tried to stop the war"). By setting the Overton window with extreme proposals, subsequent compromises look temperate [9].

The European energy windfall provides crucial political cover—Trump can point to tangible economic wins while framing territorial concessions as pragmatic peace-making.

________________________________________

Europe and Denmark Push Back

For European leaders who just committed $750 billion to American energy suppliers specifically to escape Russian energy coercion, watching Trump casually trade away Ukrainian territory represents the ultimate betrayal. Europe scrambled pre-summit to defend principles. Their message was clear: "Nothing about Ukraine, without Ukraine." NATO unity flags if the U.S. moves forward unilaterally [4].

Denmark, with its Nordic-Baltic partners, has been particularly vocal: any peace that legitimizes conquest undermines the security of all small states [4].

________________________________________

Energy Market Consequences

The $750 billion European energy commitment has already reshaped Atlantic energy flows. Now, if Trump's Alaska summit produces a Ukraine ceasefire:

Oil Markets: If sanctions ease and the war pauses, the risk premium in oil prices diminishes fast—potential 10–20% drop in Brent. But Russian revenues may still rise due to full-price exports and lower logistics costs [10].

Gas Dynamics: Europe's spot prices retreat; anxiety fades. LNG flows normalize, reducing inflation pressure. But the irony deepens—Europe paid premium prices for U.S. LNG to escape Russian influence, only to see Russian territorial gains potentially legitimized [11][12].

India's Position: For India, discounted Russian oil complaints fade—if Beijing and Delhi can now buy openly at market price, the diplomatic controversy ends [11].

________________________________________

Historical Analogies Examined

Trump is likely to invoke statesmen—Churchill at Yalta, Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kissinger's realpolitik—to frame Alaska. But the analogies falter:

Historical Case What Actually Happened How Trump Might Frame It Reality Check Yalta (1945) Post-victory planning with all Allied stakeholders "Great leaders redrew world map to end war" Yalta was after victory, not during ongoing invasion Kennedy 1962 Weapons removal to avoid nuclear war "Making tough trades to avoid WWIII" Removed offensive weapons, didn't accept territorial changes Kissinger's Realpolitik Negotiated with rivals without legitimizing conquest "Making peace with enemies through wisdom" Didn't reward territorial aggression Powell & Rice Worked through alliance consensus "Hard choices to protect America first" Operated within NATO framework, didn't sideline allies

The analogies serve myth, not precedent [13].

________________________________________

Three Energy-Influenced Scenarios

Scenario A: Summit Fails Trump pivots, claiming peace offers were rejected. The $750 billion European energy deal proceeds as planned. Markets steady. Tech trade continues.

Scenario B: Freeze Without Recognition Energy prices drop; EU splits but Ukraine holds out for guarantees; Russia cashes in on normalization; European energy buyers face the irony of paying premium prices to escape Russian influence while seeing Russian territorial gains legitimized [1][4][10].

Scenario C: Tacit Recognition Oil drops further. Norms crumble. European energy investments look foolish—they paid to escape Russian coercion only to see it rewarded. Small states seethe at the precedent [1][4][10].

________________________________________

The $750 Billion Contradiction

For European leaders, the sequence is particularly galling. They committed $750 billion to American energy precisely to reduce strategic dependence on an aggressive Russia. Now they watch Trump potentially legitimize that same Russian aggression through territorial concessions. They paid for independence from Russian energy blackmail, only to see territorial blackmail succeed.

________________________________________

Denmark & EU: Small-State Lessons

For Denmark and Nordic partners, legitimizing conquest threatens the foundation of small-state security. Their unified voice stands against normalizing territorial changes by force—especially after Europe just spent $750 billion to escape the consequences of such aggression [4].

________________________________________

Contradiction as Strategy

Trump's contradiction—pushing a weak plan as bold action while sitting on a $750 billion European energy windfall—is the strategy. Facts don't matter; framing does. He positions refusal as moral failure, backed by the economic credibility the European deal provides.

________________________________________

A Road to Responsible Resolution

A better approach would require: securing alliance consensus first; ensuring European energy investments support rather than undermine European security; insisting on verification parallel with talks; conditional economic relief; and preservation of global norms. That's the durable path to peace, not theatre. ________________________________________

Warning to Other Nations: Don't Fall Into the Same Trap

The European experience with the $750 billion energy deal offers a crucial lesson for other countries now facing Trump's tariff negotiations and trade demands. The pattern is clear and dangerous:

Step 1: Create Economic Leverage Trump demands massive purchases, investments, or trade concessions from allied nations, often under threat of tariffs or other economic punishment.

Step 2: Extract Political Capital Once countries have committed billions and become economically invested, Trump uses that leverage to pursue controversial foreign policy goals that may contradict the original purpose of the economic arrangement.

Step 3: Force Acceptance Through Sunk Costs Nations that have already paid find themselves trapped—opposing Trump's subsequent moves risks losing their massive investments while appearing to "choose conflict over cooperation."

Countries currently negotiating tariffs and trade deals with the Trump administration should be aware:

Mexico and Canada (USMCA renegotiation): Beware of massive infrastructure or energy commitments being later leveraged for immigration or security concessions that undermine sovereignty.
Japan and South Korea: Large defense spending commitments could be used to pressure acceptance of controversial regional security arrangements.
India: Agricultural and technology purchase agreements may later be leveraged to force positions on China or other strategic issues that conflict with India's non-alignment principles.
Brazil and other Latin American nations: Energy and agricultural deals could become tools to pressure support for US interventions in the region.

The European lesson is stark: paying Trump's price doesn't guarantee influence over his decisions—it often funds your own strategic disadvantage. Countries entering negotiations should structure any agreements with clear boundaries, sunset clauses, and protection against policy linkage to unrelated strategic issues.

Don't let economic desperation or the promise of market access create the same trap that now sees Europe paying premium prices for American energy while watching its core security interests potentially traded away in Alaska.

________________________________________

References: [1] Europe races to influence U.S. stance ahead of Trump–Putin talks [Reuters] [2] Putin, Trump envoy Witkoff meet in Moscow [CBS News] [3] Ukrainian polling on territorial concessions [Tandfonline; Russia Matters] [4] Nordic-Baltic leaders reject forced concessions [Reuters] [5] Enforcement concerns in proposed deals [Reuters] [6] Trump opens AI chip sales to China [Reuters] [7] China's response to chip policy shift [Reuters] [8] Allied tech control coordination [Reuters] [9] Trump's domestic political strategy analysis [10] Oil market risk premium dynamics [Reuters] [11] EU energy policy and India trade [Reuters; Al Jazeera] [12] European gas market analysis [Reuters] [13]

________________________________________

Germán Toro Ghío leads Karlstad-based Germán Toro Ghío Strategic Energy Consulting, advising on African energy transitions.

l_______________________________________

Germán & Co 8/9/25 Germán & Co 8/9/25

Monroe, Capote, Cardenal, Tits, Sex, Alcohol, Theft, Chocolate and Mental Illness: The Night Spain Learnt to Confess…

Mental illnesses — an unseen crisis that breaks families apart and leaves lives in ruins.

Shabbat Reflections:
Peace, Memory and the Weight of History Between Gaza and the Memory of History
On this Sabbath, I wish you all health, good fortune and the protection of those you love. And I pray — with a heart heavy and unflinching — for an end to the genocide in Gaza.
Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel since 29 December 2022 in his current term, and in previous stints dating back to 1996, does not represent the Jewish people as a whole. The Jewish family, in all its breadth — from the Ashkenazim of Europe to the Beta Israel of Ethiopia, through the Sephardim and the Mizrahim — condemns violence that sows only more hatred.
I do not write this to forget. I will not forget the Hamas attack of 7 October 2023, launched from Gaza by the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades under Yahya Sinwar, with the political shield of Ismail Haniyeh. That morning, some 1,200 people in Israel were killed and more than 240 taken hostage. It was a Trojan horse that unleashed a war without precedent in the region.
The Jewish people want peace. They have wanted it for centuries. They need it to remain who they are.
We are living a Sabbath among thorns. And yet, in the darkness, I have been given an unexpected gift: more than 20,000 readings on LinkedIn in recent days. My thanks to those who join me in this vigil of ideas, to those who hold the word steady when the world seems to fall away. Above all, my gratitude to my dear friend Manuel Francisco Pérez Dubuc, for his unwavering solidarity, his care, his outstretched hand.
Today I remember one who is absent yet never far: José Elías Álvarez. In the solitude of my analyses, he was unmatched in his ability to read the signs — a man who could see the future with disarming clarity. An admirable soul. This embrace travels beyond time to find him.
It is said I work quickly. But this short novel has taken decades. It never set out to be one; it began as scattered notes on a subject that gripped me deeply. I wrote without haste, for it addresses a malady that cannot be handled lightly: the diseases of the mind — that invisible tragedy which shatters families and devastates lives.
Ernesto Cardenal (Granada, Nicaragua, 20 January 1925 – Managua, 1 March 2020) was a friend to my family. I cooked for him with affection, and in my home, with the help of intellectuals from around the world, part of his Nobel Prize campaign was born. In verse, he captured the elusive nature of the human mind.
And who can forget Marilyn Monroe, whispering “Happy Birthday, Mr President” to John F. Kennedy at Madison Square Garden on 19 May 1962? Or Truman Capote, who dared to inhabit the fractured minds of Perry Smith and Richard Hickock, the killers of the Clutter family in Holcomb, Kansas, on 15 November 1959 — rendering them in his 1966 work In Cold Blood.
Or the broken life of Jorge del Carmen Valenzuela Torres (Chillán, 6 March 1938 – Santiago Penitentiary, 30 April 1963), the “Jackal of Nahueltoro”, immortalised in 1970 by Miguel Littín: the tragedy of a man undone by poverty and illness, not by deliberate malice.
On this Sabbath, in times as sombre as these, I wish you the best life possible. To you and to your families: you are loved, and you are remembered.

Not a Single Penny Has Found Its Way into Our Piggy Bank in 2025

“Quarter of a million eyes have now landed on our work at Energy Central—a milestone that still feels electric. I can still see Matt Chester’s message popping up: “Fancy sharing your piece on our platform?” One word—absolutely—set the spark. Today, that spark has become a blazing beacon. Cheers, Matt, for opening the door; here’s to the next 250 k…

Under the clear-eyed wisdom of Aristotle—who in Nicomachean Ethics celebrated generosity as the art of giving just the right amount, to the right cause, at the perfect moment—we declare with steadfast resolve: throughout all of 2025, not one penny of support has graced our coffers.

This is our rallying cry to you:

Hoist our banner—like, repost, share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central: it costs nothing but echoes through halls of influence.

Lend your strength—if you can, please fuel the mission that keeps democracy honest and our energy future bright:

PayPal: gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com

IBAN: SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611

Swish: 076 423 90 79

Stripe: [Donation Link]

Every gift, no matter the size, fans the spark of independent thought into a roaring blaze. You’re not just donating—you’re empowering a truth-seeker in a world starved for clarity.

Remember, your donations are tax-deductible. Please check with your tax advisor for details.

Join us. Keep the flame burning. Light the way forward—in these darkening times, your support is the beacon guiding us all.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/monroe-capote-cardenal-tits-sex-alcohol-theft-mental-night-toro-ghio-ymupf

https://x.com/Germantoroghio/status/1954116827375665280

Germán & Co, Karlstad, Sweden | August 6, 2025

________________________________________

Life is a wild mind’s fever, only soothed by diving deeper into its vibrant chaos.

________________________________________

A Novella

________________________________________

First conceived: Mallorca, 1979. Written: allorca, 1979 • Santo Domingo • Karlstad, 2025. Santo Domingo - Karlstad, 2025.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the author, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and specific other non-commercial uses permitted by copyright law. If you need permission, please contact the author. This is a work of fiction based on real events and historical figures. While some characters and incidents are based on real people and events from 1979 Spain, dialogue and certain situations have been recreated for literary purposes. Any resemblance to actual events or locales or persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental except where noted as historical fact.

________________________________________

“Prayer for Marilyn Monroe, Lord, receive this girl known throughout the Earth by the name of Marilyn Monroe. However, that was not her actual name (but You know her true name, that of the little orphan raped at 9 years old and the shop girl who at 16 had wanted to kill herself) and who now presents herself before You without any makeup without her Press Agent without photographers and without signing autographs alone like an astronaut facing the spatial night…

Ernesto Cardenal

________________________________________

Chapter I: The Balearic Sun The sun. Blinding over the largest of the Balearics.

July 1979. The month that would change Spain forever.

In Madrid, Felipe González prepares his ascent to power. PSOE posters reading "Por el cambio" cover the walls of a Spain learning to breathe. In Guernica, Picasso's painting prepares to return home after forty years of exile. In the Basque Country, ETA kills, and Spain bleeds its freedom.

But in Mallorca, on this Mediterranean island that touches Africa with its fingertips, history is different. Here, the revolution is sensual. Corporeal. Silent.

Truman walks down Calle Marqués Torre. His small feet, almost feminine, sink into hemp espadrilles that offer no protection against the fire of Mallorcan tarmac. It's midday and the thermometer reads forty degrees in the shade.

The ground burns with that characteristic ushhh of Mediterranean summer. As if the earth itself had a fever.

It smells of Coppertone mixed with European sweat. Of paellas cooking in beach bars where reddened Germans attempt to pronounce "cerveza" in Spanish. Of Moroccan hashish that crosses the Strait in speedboats and arrives in Mallorca in the rucksacks of hippies who have made the Mediterranean their particular Kathmandu.

In his head, obsessive, hammering: Gloria, gloria, gloria... Umberto Tozzi won't leave him in peace. The song that will define the summer of '79 has been playing on loop in his brain, tortured by last night's Manhattans, for five hours.

The remains of a Moroccan chocolate joint that had circulated until the early hours mix with alcohol in his nervous system, creating that sensation of hypnosis that has accompanied him since dawn.

A figure pursues him as well.

Elegant. A woman of fifty or more. Platinum blonde hair, short, with that asymmetric cut fashionable in Paris. Deep blue eyes like the fjords of her native Norway. Always leaning against one of the bars in Alexandra discotheque.

What was this solitary Marilyn doing, so elegant, in this Mediterranean chaos?

________________________________________

Chapter II: Flashback - Oslo, January 1979 Six months earlier.

The mansion facing the fjord is buried under three metres of snow. From her bedroom window, Marilyn Zetterlund contemplates the lunar landscape of a winter that has already lasted four months and still has three to go.

It's three in the afternoon and it's already night.

The artificial light from her library creates dancing shadows over book spines. Munch, Ibsen, Hamsun, Undset. The Norwegian geniuses who transformed Nordic depression into universal art.

On the tea table, a letter with embassy letterhead from the Spanish Embassy in Oslo. An invitation to a charity dinner for Spanish orphans. The sort of social event she hates but attends out of obligation.

Her late husband, Lars, a naval industrialist, had left a fortune that automatically included her in all Scandinavian power circles—money she didn't want. Social position, she despised. Obligations she fulfilled like an automaton.

In the fireplace, birch logs crackle with that sound she's heard all her life—the sound of Nordic solitude.

She pours herself another aquavit—the third of the afternoon.

On the side table, next to the blue velvet armchair where she spends her days, a photograph: Astrid at fifteen, a month before the diagnosis. Blonde like her, with those same blue eyes that now look at her from the silver frame like an eternal reproach.

"Mummy, when I'm older I want to go to Spain. To dance flamenco. To drink sangría. To meet dark men who whisper to me in Spanish."

She never knew Spain. Never danced flamenco. Never loved a dark man.

Leukaemia took her in six months, between November and April, whilst the Norwegian winter covered everything with its mantle of white death.

Marilyn makes the decision that afternoon. She'll go to Spain. Not for the charity dinner. For Astrid. To see what her daughter never could see. To live, even a little, what her daughter never could live.

To flee from the frozen fjord that has become the mirror of her dead soul.

________________________________________

Chapter III: Manhattan, February 1979 Five months earlier.

Truman Capote's flat in the UN Plaza building is a mausoleum of lost glory. The walls are covered with photographs documenting a life that no longer exists: Capote with Jackie Kennedy, with Babe Paley, with all the high society ladies who have now erased him from their invitation lists.

It's four in the morning, and Truman can't sleep. He's never been able to sleep since "Answered Prayers" was published.

On the coffee table, empty martini bottles accumulate like fallen soldiers in a lost battle. Beside them, letters that no longer arrive. Invitations that have dried up. Telephones that no longer ring.

On the answering machine, the only messages are from editors wanting more scandals, more revelations, more literary betrayals. As if he were a gossip-producing machine rather than a writer.

He gets up and walks to the window overlooking the East River. New York never sleeps, but at this hour, even the city that never rests seems exhausted. Yellow taxis circulate like mechanical ghosts through semi-empty streets.

He thinks of Perry Smith. He always thinks of Perry Smith when he can't sleep. The executed murderer whose death has obsessed him for fifteen years. Perry was beautiful in his violence. Vulnerable in his evil. Everything Truman never dared to be: authentically destructive.

But "In Cold Blood" gave him glory. "Answered Prayers" took it away.

On the desk, next to the Olympia typewriter that now remains silent, a travel brochure to Spain. "Discover the Balearic Islands. Mediterranean paradise within your reach."

He'd bought it that afternoon at a Fifth Avenue agency, almost on impulse. As if Spain could save him from himself.

Why Spain? Why Mallorca?

Perhaps because Spain was also being reborn, it had also killed its past and was learning to be free. Probably in that newly awakened Spain, he could find something resembling redemption.

Or because in Mallorca, he could be Truman Capote without having to bear the weight of being Truman Capote.

That dawn, he made the decision. He books a flight for June. He doesn't know that in Mallorca, he'll meet a Norwegian woman who carries her living death.

He doesn't know that the woman will restore his faith in literature as the ultimate confession.

________________________________________

Chapter IV: Diego - Witness to His Generation

Diego Hernández is twenty years old and studies Fine Arts in Madrid. He's come to Mallorca with what remained of his study grant, determined to spend the freest summer of his life on the island everyone says has gone mad.

His father, a civil guard stationed in Cuenca, voted for Popular Alliance in the first democratic elections. His mother, a national school teacher, secretly voted for PSOE. Diego belongs to the first Spanish generation that doesn't know fear.

Or so he believes.

He's grown up between the Spain that was dying and the Spain being born. His first conscious memories are the demonstrations demanding amnesty, the first covers of Interviú with naked women, and the first songs by Serrat sung in Catalan on television.

He's the transition generation. Those who inherited freedom without having conquered it. Those who feel guilty for living what their parents couldn't live.

In his student rucksack, he carries three books: "One Hundred Years of Solitude" by García Márquez, "The Autumn of the Patriarch" by the same author, and "In Cold Blood" by Truman Capote in Spanish translation.

He doesn't know that tonight he'll witness the most important conversation of his life.

He doesn't know he'll be witness to the encounter between two literary geniuses in a Mallorcan discotheque whilst Spain learns to be free.

He doesn't know that what he sees and hears tonight will pursue him for decades, until he becomes a writer himself to try to capture what he witnessed.

Because Diego will be the one who, forty years later, writes this story you're reading.

________________________________________

Chapter V: The Liberation Soundtrack

On the transistor radio in the boarding house where Diego has breakfast, Radio Popular de Palma broadcasts the summer hit: "We Are Family" by Sister Sledge. The song that's become the unofficial anthem of Spain, celebrating its first decade of freedom.

Disco music has arrived in Spain with the force of a cultural revolution. Donna Summer, Bee Gees, Chic, Gloria Gaynor. Sounds coming from New York and Paris, but which in Spain acquire an almost subversive political meaning.

Dancing is an act of rebellion against forty years of military marches.

In Costa del Sol discotheques, Spaniards learn to move their bodies without shame. In Barcelona, the Catalan movida rediscovers the rhythm that Francoism had tried to kill. In Madrid, Pedro Almodóvar films transvestites dancing "I Will Survive" as if it were a declaration of war against eternal Spain.

And in Mallorca, in Alexandra discotheque, young Europeans move to the rhythm of music that speaks of liberation, chosen family, survival and free love.

"Le Freak" by Chic plays whilst Diego walks towards the beach. Nile Rodgers' guitar mixes with the sound of seagulls and the engines of Seat 600s that have invaded Balearic roads.

It's the soundtrack of Spain discovering that it can be happy.

In Oslo, Marilyn listens to Edvard Grieg in Nordic solitude. In Manhattan, Capote listens to jazz from the forties, the music of his lost youth. But here, on this Mediterranean island, both will discover that disco music can also be a form of prayer.

________________________________________

Chapter VI: Goya's Gallery Under the Sun

Twenty minutes to Palma Nova. Diego crosses Passeig Mar towards the riverside pavement. He goes down to the coast through the first entrance coming from Palma.

He observes every metre of sand. He looks for his friends camouflaged amongst the beach citizens.

And he finds himself before the most extraordinary gallery in the world.

The horizon had transformed into an open-air museum. An exhibition of flesh and desire under the Mediterranean sun. Seventy-nine. The year Europe discovered that breasts could worship the sun king without shame. Without modesty. Without the moral chains that had imprisoned bodies for centuries.

Diego walks amongst this living gallery. His Fine Arts student'’ eyes immediately recognise the forms. The textures. The volumes that have obsessed masters for millennia.

Goya's Majas, naked under the Balearic sun.

Here are the languid tits. Melancholy. Like Spain itself, which was dying in the last gasp of Francoism. Breasts that guard the sadness of generations of silenced women. Dry breasts, plagued with sorrow. The same desolation that Modigliani imprints on his taciturn faces. Breasts agonised by historical absinthe. By the time it becomes extinct by dictatorships that die.

They carry in their fall the genetic memory of submission. The invisible weight of black mantillas. Of perpetual mourning. Of dark churches where bodies were sin.

Diego stops. Observes. These women have come to liberate themselves under the Mallorcan sun. Their flaccid breasts don't seek beauty. They seek freedom. The right to exist without the masculine gaze that judges. That classifies. That possesses.

A fifty-year-old woman, with silver stretch marks marking the history of pregnancies and breastfeeding, slowly sits up on her towel. Her fallen breasts, veined, beautiful in their devastation, move with the gravity of one who has nursed children during dictatorship and now allows herself the luxury of existing in the sun.

Diego sees in her his mother, all Spanish mothers who raised children between whispers and fears.

But there are other breasts—those of the Nordics.

Fertile women arrived from countries where sexual freedom had been conquered earlier—beautiful volumes, exquisitely sensual through their anatomical excesses. Almost naked in absolute freedom, covered only by minuscule underwear, lost to humanity.

These breasts inspire freshness. Impeccably positioned on the torso as if a Greek sculptor had carved them. Round in their forms, with that pale pink colour that only exists in Raphael's virgins. The striking dark brown nipples, small diamonds embedded in the perfect architecture of young flesh.

They're the breasts of Germans, Swedes, and Dutch women who have invaded Spanish coasts. They bring with them the sexual revolution that Spain is barely beginning to taste. Their bodies are political manifestos—declarations of feminine independence.

A Stockholm blonde, no more than twenty-five, plays volleyball with her liberated breasts bouncing to the game's rhythm. No shame exists. No modesty. Only the animal joy of a young body moving in space without asking permission from any Catholic god.

And there are the ethereal ones—those who seem to emerge from a surrealist canvas.

Long and slender bone structures, covered by a veil of ochre-brown to moss-green skin. The sun has toasted them until they've become a Mediterranean landscape. They denote every joint of the body like a topographic map of desire.

Their tits adopt impossible forms. Hanging pears. Inverted triangles. Small hills in the geography of their elongated bodies. Two enormous aureolas around almost non-existent nipples. Like the long women with happy feline faces that Wilfredo Lam paints in his compositions about the Cuban jungle.

These are the Spanish women. Those who have inherited Moorish blood. African sensuality that hid under centuries of repressive Catholicism. Their breasts aren't European. They're Mediterranean. Ancestral. They carry the memory of Al-Andalus in every curve.

Diego understands he's witnessing a revolution.

Not only aesthetic. Political. Social. Anthropological.

Every pair of breasts exhibited in the sun is an act of rebellion against Franco's Spain. Against Catholic morality. Against the idea that the feminine body exists for reproduction and masculine pleasure.

Here, on this Mallorcan beach, in the summer of seventy-nine, women have declared that their breasts belong to them. That they can show them. Hide them. Offer them. Deny them as an act of their own will.

Breasts as a symbol of the new Spain.

The smell of Coppertone mixes with the saline aroma of the Mediterranean and the sweet perfume of hashish smoked discreetly behind psychedelic-coloured parasols.

A group of Catalans sing "L'Estaca" by Lluís Llach whilst a German woman with monumental breasts applies coconut oil with the parsimony of one performing a sacred ritual.

Diego observes how some women move, how their breasts oscillate as they walk towards the sea. Without haste. Without the urgency to cover themselves that would have existed just a few years before. A new corporeal grammar exists—a new language of skin.

He sees an adolescent with diminutive breasts, almost non-existent, playing frisbee with a freedom that would have been unthinkable for her mother. Her small breasts bounce with each jump. No shame exists. No modesty. Only the joy of a young body inhabited without complexes.

Tits as political resistance.

Because that's what Diego understands whilst walking amongst this human gallery: every naked breast is a vote against the past. A declaration that New Spain will be free. Sensual. Without complexes.

The breasts he sees aren't passive erotic objects. They're active subjects of their representation. Like Goya's majas, who looked directly at the spectator with defiance. Like Fellini's women, who inhabited their sexuality without asking permission.

The technique of observation.

Diego has learnt to look at the Fine Arts Faculty. He knows how to distinguish between voyeuristic gaze and artistic gaze. Between lust and aesthetic analysis.

He observes textures. Bronzed skin against the white skin of recently arrived tourists. The contrast between the pink nipples of Nordics and the brown nipples of Mediterranean women. Different flesh densities. Distinct degrees of firmness.

It's not pornography. It's visual anthropology. It's the study of the feminine body in its natural habitat of newly conquered freedom.

In his head, he takes mental notes that forty years later will become this story because Diego will be a writer. Because this beach is converting him into a writer without his knowledge.

The appearance of marine Venus.

Unconsciously, he peers at the ocean. He glimpses shadows against the light of people bathing in the sea. Marine life reminds him of familiar summer pastime scenes in Sorolla's paintings. The Sorolla who became the painter of light. The portraitist of beach people. The painter of naked children splashing in water, when childhood nudity was innocence, not suspicion.

But now there's something more. A new iconography. That of adult bodies that have chosen their nudity.

Within the blindness produced by being on the opposite side of light, Diego manages to distinguish the silhouette of a young woman emerging from the water. Like Botticelli's Venus emerging from marine foam.

She stops for a few moments to pick up a nightgown thrown on the sand. Her movement is ritual. Sacred. Diego observes how she puts the tunic over her naked breasts. The body's humidity embraces the fabric to her skin like a second birth.

The fabric over the young woman's complexion creates unusual clarity on her breasts. It highlights the perfection of their conformation. The wet tissue becomes transparent, revealing more than concealing. It's the wet-veil technique that Greek sculptors mastered to suggest anatomy without showing it completely.

These breasts are perceived as immaculate. They maintain the support of a newly cut diamond. The firmness that only exists before gravity, pregnancy, and time leave their mark, perhaps due to the lack of bustle that the timeline doesn't yet provide.

The young woman reminds Diego of that beautiful femme that Sorolla masterfully interpreted in "After the Bath". Covered by a transparent tunic, with the sea in the background, emerging from the water like a modern goddess.

Breasts as liberated territory.

Diego understands he's witnessing a historic moment. The conquest of women's right to sun. To air. To corporeal freedom.

Every pair of breasts exhibited without shame is a victory against centuries of Catholic repression. Against the idea that the feminine body is shameful. Sinful. Object of temptation that must be hidden.

Here, on this Mallorcan beach, in the summer marking the end of an era, women have planted their flag in skin territory.

Their tits are their declaration of independence.

And Diego is a witness to that declaration.

________________________________________

Chapter VII: The Foreigners - Ambassadors of New Europe

Three beautiful Scottish women from Edinburgh. Two sisters and a friend. Anne, Paulette and Cindy. Between 18 and 22 years old. Their skins, stripped of northern sun, displayed a faded white that made them look like reddened ghosts under Mediterranean sun.

They'd arrived on the Barcelona ferry, with rucksacks full of bikinis they'd never used and tanning creams bought at Boots. They came from a Scotland where Margaret Thatcher had just come to power, promising a firm hand and where youth unemployment exceeded twenty per cent.

But in Mallorca, they were free. In the biggest of the Balearic Islands, they could be the women that Scottish Presbyterian morality forbade them to be.

They'd met an island friend of Truman's. Capote fuerte, as they called him in Spanish. Capoti in English. That was the name of the American writer's summer lover.

Capote fuerte is twenty-five and has the Mediterranean beauty that drives northern tourists mad. Skin bronzed by generations of Balearic sun, black eyes that seem to guard Arabic secrets, and that smile mixing Mallorcan innocence with newly awakened sexual malice.

His father has a mechanical workshop in Palma. His mother sells ensaimadas to German tourists. He speaks four languages, which he learned on the street, and is an expert at making lonely foreigners feel at home.

Truman has a relationship that neither of them bothers to define. Summer love. Mediterranean sex. A mutual company between an American literary genius and a young Balearic man discovering he can be desired by someone famous.

—Hello Capote! How's it going?

—In full swing, —Truman would reply, with senses more in order after the marine bath.

—Let me introduce some friends.

Capote fuerte bowed like a buffoon when introducing Anne. With Paulette, he engaged in the same melodrama. His gestures are even more dramatic. But with Cindy, it was different. Capote fuerte revered his admiration. Despite the love affair between him and Truman, his face took on a serious look. He joined hands at heart level. Head bowed in emulation of a Buddhist greeting, trying to transmit the emotion he felt for her. For Cindy.

Cindy represents everything Capote fuerte will never be able to have: class, British education, a future extending beyond Mallorca's tourist seasons. She's a Literature student at Edinburgh University. She's read Virginia Woolf. She knows who Truman Capote is before being introduced.

And Capote fuerte falls in love with her with the desperation of one who knows love has an expiry date: the last September ferry.

They responded to Capote Fuerte's theatrical presentation:

—Hello, Truman...

—Hello...

Capote approached and kissed them on each cheek. Sealing a third kiss on his right hand palm. A gesture he'd learnt in Manhattan salons and which here, on this Mallorcan beach, acquires a different meaning. More authentic. Less calculated.

—Ça va? Capote fuerte...

—Ça va? Capote...

—Ça va?

They were Ann-Charlotte and Marie. French friends from Arcachon in Bordeaux. They'd been involved in the group's affairs for some time. Ann-Charlotte studies Philosophy at the Sorbonne and is writing her thesis on Simone de Beauvoir. Marie wants to be a photographer and carries a Leica she never uses because she's too busy living to document life.

They come from a France where François Mitterrand prepares to win elections, promising to "change life". A France that has already had its May '68 and now exports its sexual liberation to the Mediterranean.

Marie said goodbye almost instantly:

—See you tonight...

Ann-Charlotte remained with the tribe, conversing with Capote. She was melancholy because she had to separate from her summer love. In four days, she had to leave for France. Summer was dying, and with it the fleeting loves of that season.

But there was something more. Ann-Charlotte had connected with Truman on an intellectual level that surprised her. She'd read "Music for Chameleons" in French and wanted to talk to him about the technique of "novelised journalism". She tried to understand how one can write truth using fiction techniques.

She didn't know she was talking to a man who had sacrificed his entire social life for doing precisely that.

________________________________________

Chapter VIII: Capote fuerte - The Mediterranean Incarnate.

Whilst Truman floats in the Mediterranean, letting saltwater cure the wounds Manhattan had opened in his soul, Capote fuerte observes from shore with that mixture of adoration and perplexity his American lover produces in him.

For Capote fuerte, Truman is an extraterrestrial. A being coming from a world where people live in skyscrapers, take yellow taxis and publish books read by everyone—a world as distant from his native Mallorca as Mars.

But at the same time, in the bed of the small flat they rent together in Cala Mayor, Truman becomes what he is: a forty-five-year-old man, short, with a high voice that in intimacy becomes a whisper, and a need for affection frightening in its intensity.

Capote fuerte doesn't understand why someone so famous, so successful, so brilliant, needs constant confirmation that he's loved. He doesn't understand why Truman sometimes wakes up screaming names he doesn't recognise: Perry, Babe, Lee.

He doesn't understand why a man who has dined with Jacqueline Kennedy cries when seeing photos of New York parties in American magazines he buys at the port kiosk.

What he does understand is that Truman needs saving. And he, Capote fuerte, with his twenty-five years and limited education, has become the involuntary saviour of one of America's most important writers.

The sentimental education of Capote fuerte

Truman is teaching him things he never knew existed. Not just about sex —though that too— but about life. About how to look at a sunset and see a metaphor in it. About how to listen to people talk and detect the lies they tell themselves about how to convert pain into art.

—Do you think rich people are happier? —he asks one afternoon whilst watching German millionaires' yachts pass by.

—No, —Truman responds without hesitation—. Rich people are more complicated. And complicated isn't the same as profound.

—And are you happy?

—I'm honest. And honesty and happiness are natural enemies.

Capote fuerte doesn't fully understand what that means, but he files it in his memory along with all the other phrases Truman drops like seeds that will someday germinate in his consciousness.

Mediterranean jealousy

But something is consuming him: jealousy. Not sexual jealousy —the relationship with Truman isn't exclusive and both know it— but intellectual jealousy.

When he sees Truman talk to Ann-Charlotte about French literature, when he sees him converse with other writers who sometimes appear in Mallorca, when he realises there are parts of Truman's mind that are forbidden territory for him, Capote fuerte feels a frustration he doesn't know how to express.

He can give Truman his body, his youth, his Mediterranean joy. But he can't give him what Truman needs: an intellectual equal. Someone who understands references, who has read the books, who can follow his thoughts when they become too complex.

And that makes him a perfect lover and an impossible companion.

The future that won't exist

Capote fuerte knows this is temporary. He knows September will come and Truman will return to New York, to his world of skyscrapers and cocktails and literary critics. He knows he'll stay in Mallorca, helping his father in the workshop, living off memories of a summer when he was a genius's lover.

But there are nights when he wakes up and finds Truman writing on the balcony, with that small portable typewriter he always carries, and he wonders if perhaps, just perhaps, love could be stronger than differences of class, culture, and education.

He wonders if perhaps Truman could stay. If they could build something real on this island, where everything seems possible.

He doesn't know that Truman asks himself the same questions. He doesn't know that Truman has seriously considered the possibility of never returning to New York, of staying forever on this island where he can be happy in a simple, Mediterranean way, without complications.

He doesn't know that the only thing separating them isn't the difference of worlds, but the fact that Truman Capote can't live without being Truman Capote, and Truman Capote can't exist in Mallorca.

He can't be a literary genius and a Mediterranean lover at the same time. He has to choose.

And both know what the choice will be, though neither dares verbalise it.

________________________________________

Chapter IX: Alexandra in Magaluf - The Existential Laboratory

Alexandra was an atypical discotheque located in the heart of Magaluf, a beach which had become the epicentre of European liberation on Spanish territory. Different from the ordinary. Instead of being shrouded in darkness and illuminated by those lugubrious ultraviolet lights that highlight white colour, it was illuminated.

As if it were a metaphor for new Spain: transparent, without secrets, without the shadows that had defined the previous forty years.

But also like an existential laboratory where each individual faced the terrible freedom of choosing who to be without the moral chains that previously defined every gesture.

The Sartrean nausea of freedom

For Spanish youth who filled Alexandra every night, the experience was simultaneously liberating and anguishing. For the first time in their lives, they could choose everything: whom to dance with, whom to kiss, how to move their bodies, what to think, what to say.

And that absolute freedom produced what Sartre would call existential nausea.

Diego observed from his corner how many young Spaniards were paralysed on the dance floor, overwhelmed by infinite possibilities. Forty years of dictatorship had prepared them to obey, not to choose.

Freedom was a condemnation they had to learn to bear.

The anguish of being authentic

In Alexandra converged all contradictions of Spain '79: the desire for modernity and fear of change, the need for liberation and nostalgia for lost certainty, the euphoria of democracy and anguish of having to build national identity from scratch.

Every young person entering Alexandra faced the fundamental question: Who am I when I can be anything?

Germans, Swedes, and the French who populated Magaluf came from societies that had already resolved these questions. For them, Alexandra was simply fun. For Spaniards, it was an existential battlefield.

The older woman: The weight of knowledge

Amidst all this explosive youth, Marilyn Zetterlund's presence created a contrast going beyond the generational. She represented the weight of knowledge, the burden of one who has lived enough to know all choices have consequences.

Young people had adopted her as a sort of existential oracle. They came to her not only with their love stories, but with their fundamental doubts about the meaning of existence in a Spain that no longer believed in God, Franco, or any external authority.

—You'll be wondering what this old woman is doing sitting in this bar, alone, every day, stuck here in this young people's discotheque. Incidentally, this old woman is called Marilyn Zetterlund.

But her response was deeper than juvenile curiosity:

—I'm here because I've learnt that shared solitude is less cruel than solitary solitude. I'm here because you still believe your choices matter, and that faith keeps me alive.

The drama of mortality

The discotheque had become a theatre where each night the fundamental human drama was performed: young people pretending to be immortal, adults knowing they weren't, and music as soundtrack to postponed mortality.

Every song that played was a reminder that time passes. Every dance was a desperate attempt to stop the clock. Every kiss was a small victory against death.

And at the centre of everything, acute awareness that Spain itself was mortal. That this newly born democracy could die. That this freedom could be lost. That nothing, absolutely nothing, was guaranteed.

Authenticity as a moral imperative

In Alexandra, being authentic had become the only remaining moral imperative. In a society that had lost all external certainties, the only possible truth was the interior truth.

But being authentic meant accepting one's contradictions. It meant confessing that civil guards could be thieves. That brilliant writers could be profoundly unhappy. Mothers could hate their motherhood. That young people could be terrified by their youth.

That's why Capote's phrase resonated so much: "Have you heard a policeman say he's a good thief?"

Because it was the perfect question for a society learning that authenticity was more critical than respectability.

Around two in the morning, no fewer than twenty girls and boys had gathered around Marilyn. I don't know what magnetism she possessed. Perhaps her fluent pronunciation of Spanish with a traditional accent. Or the deep, harsh voice, typical of abundant cigarette consumption. Or the calm and audacity of her stories. Uncommon. They made youth love sharing with that lady who represented the tragic wisdom of one who has lost everything and continues living.

________________________________________

Chapter X: The Encounter of Broken Souls

Around three in the morning, when other young people had dispersed on their nocturnal hunts, Truman Capote slowly approached the corner where Marilyn Zetterlund remained motionless, like a Nordic sphinx carved in bar marble.

Diego, from his observation table, witnessed what would be the most important conversation of his life. He didn't know it then, but forty years later, he would become a writer solely to tell this story.

—So Marilyn... —said Capote with his characteristic voice, high and theatrical—. Or do you prefer Karin?

The woman raised her deep blue eyes towards him. A melancholy smile drew itself on her lips.

—Call me whatever you want, darling. Names are masks we use to hide from ourselves.

Capote settled on the adjacent stool, ordered a martini with a sign to the barman, and studied the profile of this woman who had captivated all of Alexandra's youth.

—You know who I am, don't you?

—Of course, Truman. I've read "In Cold Blood". I've read "Other Voices, Other Rooms". I know your work. I know your pain.

The writer started slightly. He didn't expect that direct reference to his pain.

—My pain?

—The pain of one who writes about murderers because he understands the darkness of the human soul. The pain of one born different in a world that punishes difference. The pain of one who loves men in a society that condemns him for it.

Marilyn lit another cigarette, smoke forming spirals ascending towards disco lights.

—But tell me about you, Marilyn. About your real pain. Why is a Norwegian woman of your age and your class here, night after night, in a discotheque of young Spaniards?

Marilyn's laugh was harsh, like broken glass.

—My pain? Oh, dear Truman, my pain has a name and surname. It's called cosmic solitude.

—Explain.

—Have you ever felt you're an extraterrestrial on your planet? Do you observe humanity from outside, incapable of really connecting with another human being?

Capote took a sip of his martini, thoughtful.

—All my life.

—Exactly. That's why I'm here. These young people look at me like a curiosity. An ancient woman who tells them stories. They don't see me as a woman. They don't desire me. They don't judge me. They listen. And in that listening, I find something resembling company.

The Oslo of memory

—And in Norway?

—In Norway, I'm the wealthy widow. The woman who lost her husband in a boat accident. The one who lives alone in a mansion facing the fjord. The one neighbour's pity and fear at the same time. Because solitude, dear Truman, becomes contagious after a particular time.

Capote nodded, understanding.

—I'm also fleeing. From New York. But you know what's curious, Marilyn? Our cities are opposite, and yet they've produced the same type of existential emptiness in us.

—Explain.

—Oslo is the city of silence. Of forced introspection. Of winter that obliges you to look inward because there's nothing to see outside.

—Exactly. In Oslo, the cold pushes you towards your interior. The nights are so long you have no choice but to face yourself. There's no escape in light, in frenetic activity. You only have your mind as company.

—New York is the opposite. It's the city of constant noise. Of perpetual movement. Of infinite distractions. But curiously, it produces the same solitude as your silent Oslo.

—How is that possible?

Capote took a sip of his martini and looked towards the dance floor.

—In New York, you can be surrounded by eight million people and feel completely alone. The city's speed is so brutal that nobody has time for real connections. Everything is superficial. Immediate. Disposable.

—In Oslo, it's different. Their solitude is honest. Pure. It doesn't disguise itself as socialisation. In dark months, it's simply you, your house, and the emptiness of the frozen fjord.

—Do you know what I envy about your Oslo?

—What?

—The honesty of its emptiness. In New York, solitude disguises itself. People go to cocktails, galleries, theatres, pretending connection. But they're as isolated as you in your Norwegian mansion. They don't admit it.

Marilyn lit another cigarette, thoughtful.

—But do you know what's most fascinating about all this, Truman?

—What?

—That's where we are. Two castaways from the north. Two souls frozen by our respective urban solitudes. And we've come to take refuge on a Mediterranean island that's practically in Africa.

Capote looked around, as if seeing the discotheque for the first time.

—You're right. Mallorca is a stone's throw from Morocco. From Algeria. From the chocolate continent.

—Exactly. And here we are, immersed in the lust of an island belonging to a country that's just beginning to know freedom. Spain has just awakened from forty years of moral winter. Franco died only two years ago.

—It's as if we'd come to witness a birth. The birth of Spanish sensuality.

—Do you realise? We come from countries already free, already developed, already cynical. But Spain... Spain is discovering freedom like an adolescent discovers her sexuality.

Capote observed the dance floor where young Spaniards mixed with European tourists in an orgy of music, sweat and desire.

—That's why everything here is so intense. So carnal. So desperate.

—Exactly. In Oslo, repression is Protestant. Cold. Contained. In New York, repression is economic. Competitive. Calculated. But here... here repression has been Catholic. Mediterranean. African at the bottom.

—African?

—Of course, darling. The Moors were here for eight hundred years. African blood runs through Spanish veins, though they deny it. When Franco died, he not only liberated Spain from fascism. He liberated Moorish sensuality that had been chained for centuries.

Capote took a long sip of his martini, processing the idea.

—That's why everything here seems so... primitive to me. So authentic. These young people haven't yet learnt to be sophisticated in their freedom.

—Exactly! In New York, sexual freedom is just another accessory. Like a designer handbag. Here, it's emotional survival. It's breathing after having been underwater.

—And we're voyeurs of that newly born freedom.

—We're anthropologists of desire, Truman. We study a society rediscovering its own body.

Elite secrets

—I'm also fleeing, you know? From New York. From my demons. From fame that devours me like cancer. And now... now I'm also fleeing from my former friends.

—What have you done, Truman?

Capote took a long sip of his martini, as if needing liquid courage to continue.

—I've written the truth. The terrible, destructive truth about American high society. About their most intimate secrets. Their adulteries. Their betrayals. Their golden miseries.

—"Answered Prayers"?

Capote's eyes lit up with surprise.

—You know it?

—Darling, in European circles, there's much talk about your book. About how you've destroyed Manhattan's elite with your poisonous pen.

—It wasn't poison, Marilyn. It was honesty. Pure, brutal honesty.

—Tell me.

Capote lit a cigarette with slightly trembling hands.

—For years, I was confident in America's most powerful women. Babe Paley, the CBS magnate's wife. Lee Radziwill, Jackie Kennedy's sister. Slim Keith, C.Z. Guest... They all told me their secrets. Invited me to their parties. Treated me like an exotic pet.

—And you betrayed it all?

—No! —Capote's voice rose, high and defensive—. I documented the truth. I wrote about how Babe discovered her husband was sleeping with her best friend. About how European royalty comes to New York to borrow money. About blackmail, drugs, marriages of convenience...

Marilyn smiled bitterly.

—Ah, monarchy secrets. I know some of those, too.

—Really?

—Darling, when you have money in Norway, you automatically enter certain circles. I've dined with Danish royalty. I've heard nocturnal confessions from alcoholic princes and depressive queens.

—Have you never felt tempted to tell it?

—Of course. But I'm not a writer. You are. And that's your curse.

Capote looked at her intensely.

—Explain.

—Writers are condemned to transform life into literature. They can't live a moment without wondering how it will sound on paper. They can't hear a secret without imagining how they'd write it.

—Exactly! —Capote struck the bar with his small fist. That's precisely what happened to me. For years, I accumulated stories. Observed. Listened. Took mental notes. And when I finally wrote them...

—The world fell apart.

—My friends became my enemies. Doors to the most exclusive salons closed to me. Overnight, I became a social pariah.

Royal genetic patterns

—And what about Spanish royalty? Since we're here...

Marilyn took a long sip of whisky, as if evaluating how much she could reveal.

—Ah, Spanish royalty... You know? In my Nordic circles there's much comment about certain patterns that seem to repeat generation after generation.

—Patterns?

—Genetic, darling. Tendencies are inherited, like eye colour or height. But more... intimate.

Capote moved closer, lowering his voice.

—In "Answered Prayers" I wrote about Pablo Gracia. Do you know him?

—Of course. The one who lives the perfect double life. He's not open like you, Truman. He hides behind marriages of convenience and impeccable public appearances.

—Exactly. Pablo is the master of disguise. He has a wife, children, and a perfect façade of aristocratic respectability. But at night...

—At night, he's completely different.

—And what's fascinating is that this pattern isn't unique to Pablo. It's almost a family tradition. An inheritance passing from fathers to sons, like a recessive gene that occasionally surfaces.

Marilyn lit another cigarette, thoughtful.

—Are you suggesting there's a genetic line of... let's say, unconventional preferences in the Spanish high aristocracy?

—I don't suggest it. I affirm it. And not only Spanish. European in general. But in Spain, it's fascinating because Catholic repression has been so intense that it's created perfectly divided personalities.

—Like Pablo?

—Like Pablo. Like many others. Men who, during the day, are pillars of conservative society, and at night explore their true nature in very, very secret circles.

—Do you think this will continue in future generations?

Capote took a sip of his martini, contemplative.

—Marilyn, genes don't lie. Repression can hide, but can't change fundamental nature. Pablo has children. Those children will have children. And some of them will inevitably inherit not only titles and fortunes, but also... inclinations.

—Even if they reach positions of supreme power?

—Especially if they reach positions of supreme power. Power often amplifies those tendencies. The sensation of being above conventional moral rules.

—It's a fascinating time bomb.

—Exactly. Imagine: within one or two generations, we could have leaders carrying that genetic inheritance to the highest levels of power. And they'll have to choose between authenticity and political survival.

—Like Pablo has had to choose?

—But Pablo doesn't have the pressure of maximum scrutiny. A future king, for example, would have to navigate those waters with much more precision.

Marilyn looked at him intensely.

—Are you talking about someone specific?

—I'm talking about genetic probabilities, dear. About patterns that repeat. About the fascinating possibility that future Spain might have to face truths about its leadership that would be unthinkable in Franco's Spain.

The weight of honesty

—Is it worth it? Is truth worth it?

Capote reflected for a long moment.

—Do you know what hurts me most? It's not having lost my friends. It's been discovered that they were never really my friends. They loved me for my talent to entertain them, for my capacity to make them laugh with my cruel gossip. But the moment I directed that cruelty towards them...

—They abandoned you.

—Like rats fleeing a sinking ship.

Marilyn ordered another whisky and lit a new cigarette.

—Rich people are the same worldwide, darling. I've seen the same patterns in Oslo, Copenhagen, and London. They have a code: you can mock anyone, except them.

—So homophobia doesn't only damage individuals. It damages entire societies.

—Exactly. And whole countries lose their leaders' complete potential because those leaders are spending half their mental energy maintaining secrets.

—It's a Shakespearean tragedy on a national scale.

—And what I wrote about Pablo is only the tip of the iceberg. There are entire families, complete dynasties, where this is a recurring pattern.

—Do you think the whole truth will ever be known?

—Oh, it will be known. Truth always comes to light, Marilyn. Always. The question isn't whether it will be known, but when. And whether it's known, society will be ready to accept it, or it will destroy it.

Ernesto Cardenal and Marilyn Monroe

Marilyn remained thoughtful for a moment, turning her whisky glass between her hands.

—Do you know what's most curious about all this, Truman?

—What?

—That you call me Marilyn. That all these young people call me Marilyn. As if unconsciously, they'd detected something in me connecting with her.

—With whom?

—With the honest Marilyn. With Marilyn Monroe. With that broken girl, the world converted into a sexual symbol without ever asking who she was.

Capote straightened on his stool, suddenly interested.

—Tell me about that.

—Have you read "Prayer for Marilyn Monroe" by Ernesto Cardenal?

—The Nicaraguan poet? Merton's follower?

—Exactly. The Nobel Academy denied the well-deserved prize to him because his poetry is too pure, too honest for European tastes.

—I've heard of him. They say he's extraordinary.

—He's more than extraordinary, Truman. He's a visionary. And he wrote about Marilyn Monroe like no one else. He described her not as Hollywood's dumb blonde, but as what she was: an orphan raped at nine, a shop girl who wanted to kill herself at sixteen.

Capote remained quiet, processing the words.

—Continue.

—Cardenal sees her presenting herself before God "without any makeup, without her Press Agent, without photographers and without signing autographs, alone like an astronaut facing spatial night".

—My God.

—Do you realise the genius of that image? "Alone like an astronaut facing spatial night". That's precisely what Marilyn was. And that's exactly what you and I are.

—Astronauts facing spatial night.

—Exactly. Cardenal understood that Marilyn wasn't a sexual symbol. She was a symbol of cosmic solitude. Of absolute vulnerability disguised as power.

—Like us.

—Like us. That's why I identify so much with her. That's why when these young people call me Marilyn, they're not wrong. Because I'm also an emotional orphan. I've also been raped by life. I've also wanted to die.

—And you've also presented yourself without makeup before the world?

—Tonight, yes. With you. For the first time in years, I've removed all masks.

Capote extended his hand towards hers.

—Do you know what else Cardenal wrote about her?

—Tell me.

—That she dreamt as a child, she was naked in a church before a prostrate multitude, with heads on the ground, and had to walk on tiptoes not to step on heads.

Marilyn visibly shuddered.

—That's... that's exactly how I've felt all my life. Walking on tiptoes not to hurt others with my pain.

—And Cardenal understands that the dream wasn't about exhibitionism. It was about absolute vulnerability. About being exposed before multitudes that didn't see her.

—Like tonight. Like every night, I come here. I am exposed before these young people who don't see me. Who sees me as a curiosity, not as a person.

—But I see you, Marilyn. I see you.

—And I see you. And that's what Cardenal understood about the honest Marilyn: that all she wanted was to be seen. Seen. Not adored, not objectified. Just... understood.

Astrid's confession

—Do you think Cardenal personally knew that solitude?

—Of course. How else could he write like that? Only someone who has been an astronaut facing spatial night can recognise another astronaut.

—Like us tonight.

—Like us tonight. Three cosmic loners: Cardenal in his Nicaraguan monastery, you in your Manhattan flats, me in my Oslo mansion.

—And the honest Marilyn in her Brentwood flat, dying alone with a telephone in hand.

—Do you know what's most terrible?

—What?

—That Cardenal had to write a prayer for her. As if she were a saint. A martyr. Because that's what she was: a martyr of the system that converts vulnerable people into consumer products.

—Like the system that converts writers into salon celebrities.

—Exactly. Marilyn died of being Marilyn Monroe. You're dying of being Truman Capote. I'm dying of being Oslo's respectable widow.

—And what saves us?

—Nights like this. Conversations like this. Moments where we can remove disguises and be simply human.

Marilyn took a long sip of whisky and closed her eyes for a moment.

—I must tell you something, Truman. Something I've never told anyone.

—I'm listening.

—I had a daughter. Her name was Astrid. She died at sixteen. Leukaemia.

Marilyn's voice broke slightly.

—For two years, I watched her die slowly, day by day, cell by cell. And I couldn't do anything. Absolutely nothing.

Capote felt a chill run down his spine.

—I'm sorry.

—I don't want your pity, darling. I want your understanding. Do you understand now why I talk to these young people? I see in them the life my Astrid never could live. The summer love she never had. The dance nights she missed. The silly and meaningful conversations at once.

—Is that why you came to Spain?

—I came to Spain because here death doesn't follow me. In Norway, every corner of my house has its ghost. Every object reminds me of what I lost. Here I can pretend, for a few hours, that I'm just a woman telling stories.

Truman extended his small, pale hand towards Marilyn's. They touched briefly.

—We're two castaways on the same desert island.

—Exactly. Two souls who have seen too much. Who knows too much. Who has lost too much.

—Do you believe in redemption, Marilyn?

—No. But I believe in small moments of grace. Like this. Like this conversation. Like seeing these young people fall in and out of love without knowing that time is the only thing that matters.

—I've also lost faith in almost everything. Except words. In the power of telling stories.

—That's why you write about murderers. Because in the absolute darkness of the human soul, you find some light. A small spark telling you it's worth continuing to live.

—And you? What keeps you alive?

Marilyn looked towards the dance floor, where dozens of young people moved to the music's rhythm.

—Them. Their youth. Their blessed ignorance. Their capacity to believe love will last forever. Their ability to be happy without reason. They're my morphine against existential pain.

—Do you know what's most terrible about knowing the truth about life?

—Tell me.

—That you can't unknow it. Once you've seen behind the veil, you can't be innocent again. We're condemned to lucidity.

—That's why we drink, dear Truman.

—That's why we drink.

Both raised their glasses in a silent toast. A toast for the dead. For lost loves. For illusions that would never return.

The improvised prayer

—Do you know what I like about you, Marilyn?

—What?

—That you don't pretend. Don't pretend life is beautiful. Don't lie about pain.

—And I like that you write about darkness without romanticising it. That you show evil as what it is: banal, stupid, terribly human.

—Let's toast then to honesty.

—To terrible, necessary honesty.

At that moment, "Sad Eyes" began playing through speakers, and both remained silent, listening to the melancholy melody that seemed composed mainly for them.

—Do you know what's the only thing giving me hope? —Marilyn whispered.

—What?

—That we exist. That souls like yours and mine exist in this world. That we're not entirely alone in our lucidity.

—We're truth's custodians, Marilyn. Those who keep the memory of pain alive. So others don't forget. So others know they're not alone.

—Exactly.

Marilyn closed her eyes for a moment, as if channelling the Nicaraguan poet.

—"Lord, receive these two souls known throughout Earth with names that aren't their true names, but You know their true names: that of the different child who grew up in Alabama and that of the girl who lost her daughter in Oslo, and who now present themselves before You without any literary disguise, without their social masks, without their public characters, alone like two astronauts facing Mediterranean spatial night."

Capote remained silent, tears in his eyes.

—You're a poet, Marilyn.

—No. I'm just someone who understands pain. Like Cardenal. Like you. Like the real Marilyn.

—Like all of us who have been converted into symbols when all we wanted was to be human.

________________________________________

Chapter XI: Dawn: The Ritual of Endings Dawn was approaching.

Fever amongst Alexandra's citizens rose in intensity. On the dance floor, Marcus, one of the two Jamaican disc jockeys, perched atop the mixing desk, displayed his intrinsic rhythm to his genetic nomenclature. He contorted like a slow-motion snake to Isaac Hayes' "Shaft" beats. Whilst Winston synchronised turntables with complete concentration to release Dawn's most sentimental song: "Sad Eyes" by Robert John.

Those "Sad Eyes" unleashed feverish states amongst Alexandra's citizens. Moreover, that musical theme helped dispel unknowns about the fortune conquest efforts that would have occurred that night. That's when spirits ignited amongst hundreds of souls infected by Mallorcan dawn lust.

Discotheque citizens rushed, almost running, to the dance floor in an actual sexual hunt.

Diego observed from his table, fascinated by the transformation he'd witnessed during recent hours. The conversation between Capote and Marilyn had been like attending a masterclass in literature, psychology and human pain.

He'd taken mental notes of every phrase, every gesture, every silence. Without knowing it, he was documenting the story he'd write forty years later.

The closure ritual

From couples came fusion aromas of oestrogen and testosterone. They awakened hidden senses by sheltering antonymous sex with touch. They passed with love in unconscious on culmination's verge. Inciting the other erotic self and carnal appetites. Hands accompanied feelings. Undressing prey in the mind's imagination. Bodies contracted by perverse inertia with deliberate intention. Openly seeking the desired slip.

Summer loves also became more endearing. Calling for the innocent youth's climax. "I won't forget you," murmured the lover in another's ear. Leaving breath's imprint.

Cunning efforts were far from ingenious youthful intellectuality. Young men, like broken records, fired obvious nonsense to win over some girl.

—You're sensational...

—You're unique...

—Super nice...

—Your eyes are multicoloured. They look like violets... Or maybe they're emeralds. All I know is they're so cute, —said the inexperienced heartthrob.

Return to youthful reality.

In "Sad Eyes" last stanza, all young people gathered again with the elegant lady to continue hearing her stories in that busy bar corner.

Moods reached by alcohol touched the elegant lady's interior. Her voice had deepened. Her stories were even calmer. Topics are more erotic and interesting. Young people paid even more attention to the story about to begin.

—I'll tell you a story that has much to do with your present state of mind.

That state of mind, what's it called? How?...

Ex... Excid... Excited... ayyy... How difficult... Please help me...

Oops, let's see, better, easier. "Hot." Is that okay? "Hot" is the right word...

Young people's laughter was contagious. In the vicinity, you could hear the sound of glass bottles crashing into wooden crates.

This elderly Norwegian lady's figure, leaning against the bar, with hard binding she'd reached at that hour, created such rapport with discotheque citizens that interest in hearing stories extended to bartenders on the other side of the marble circle.

With a cigarette in her right hand, she wouldn't let go, a mocking smile on her face, examining each youthful face with her eyes, trying to establish the necessary mystery for her next story, Marilyn began.

Munch's Madonna

—I'll tell you, Munch created a second series of five works he called "The Madonna". The series is also known as "Munch's Madonna". It's guessed that with this work Munch tried to describe your sexual states, humans... Its interpretation. As you'll understand, nobody was in Munch's mind. So nobody can assert these reflections are entirely accurate. However, I'm pretty sure they're close to his thoughts because, after all, we're all human.

Munch's Madonna is a rectangular composition. In the centre of the painting, he placed a young woman, more adolescent. You can also distinguish the upper part of her body in the pleasure pose. Or seeking pleasure. Or desiring pleasure...

In the composition's periphery, in contour, surrounding a young woman, equally rectangular, Edvard places a sperm shoal in a race whose objective is interpreted, in the first intimation, as an unbridled pursuit to reach the female belly that always causes so much pleasure to those little fish maddened by reaching the ovum.

—Marilyn, how do women feel? —asked Paulette.

—That's precisely what I was about to tell you now. In a second speculation, we infer a desperate call from the female womb to seize those budding fish that, when they bite into the egg, turn into fertility to preserve our continuity. That is why Munch placed the foetus in the composition where the sperm shoal begins, interpreted by some, especially men, as a diabolical entity women create to make themselves desired by a man.

Astonishment exclamations and wows... Because young people were fascinated with stories, the area around the bar feels it.

—How bad men are, —sighed Paulette.

—You, —responded the men's chorus.

From the other side of the bar, one bartender commented to one patron:

—What a trip this aunt has put us in, with a lack of fluids in the head that doesn't drive us crazy like the court ones.

Imminent farewell

From speakers you could hear: Gloria, Gloria, Gloria, you're missing in air, your presence is missing... Missing warm innocence in my mouth that inadvertently names you, and I'll write my story with the word gloria...

All euphoric, trendy songs provoked amongst hundreds of young people trying to become a fashionable couple: Olivia Newton-John and John Travolta. Song closed that September night's reel. Like chorus lyrics, air and blood oxygenation were needed in the bodies of Alexandra's citizens.

—Marilyn... Marilyn... Marilyn... —Ann-Charlotte called the elegant lady huddled in her bar corner.

—We're leaving, Marilyn...

—We're leaving...

Marilyn, more than ever, couldn't move from her place, despite Ann-Charlotte's insistent call.

Ann-Charlotte decides to search for her. She approaches and takes her arm. Karin, almost collapsing from hard alcohol intake, approaches the exit door to catch up with the group.

First dawn light can be timidly perceived at five in the morning. Leisure fatigue invades the group's bodies. Present sleep invites rest.

________________________________________

Chapter XII: The Seat 500 and Philosopher

Civil Guard Group approaches Capote Fuerte's father's tiny, battered Seat 500. The car is parked near the sea. Capote fuerte hurries to leave and takes a few steps ahead of his friends. He searches for car keys in his pocket and prepares to open the car's left door.

The door opening process is slow, given the hour's ravages and constant consumption of some divinities that had arisen during early morning. Group, very close to Capote fuerte, attentively observes his movements. They, too, are impatient and anxious to be in the vehicle.

Capote fuerte raises right hand. Shows keys to Alexandra's citizens. Then, they place them in a lock. Gives the necessary pull to open the door. Unexpectedly, he's left with a handle in hand. Unable to open it.

This unexpected situation confuses Capote fuerte. He raises his hand high to show friends, who look worried. Provokes the group's laughter to the hilt in such a situation.

Diego, in quick reaction, tells Capote Fuerte:

—Open the car through the other door.

These Seat 500s only have two doors.

Capote Fuerte, opening arms in bewilderment, responds that the other door is broken.

Inherited fear

Concern takes hold of the group. The event goes from comic to tragicomic. Everyone bows their heads trying to find a solution to the mishap on Mallorcan soil.

Diego tries to take control of the situation and prepares to try opening the car. He raises his head and finds himself with a tricorn figure of three civil guards.

Panic invades Diego. He thinks: I don't have a passport. He feels trapped by the police. Locked in jail. Involved in mess he doesn't know how he'll get out of.

It's his generation's genetic fear. Fear of the Civil Guard they've inherited from parents, who inherited it from grandparents. Forty years of dictatorship aren't erased in two years of democracy.

For Diego, tricorns represent everything Spain is trying to leave behind: repression, authoritarianism, uniform fear.

Young people from abroad don't understand that tension. For them, they're simply police. For Diego, they're heirs of those who for decades repressed any expression of freedom.

Historical surprise

Unexpectedly, a civil guard's voice is heard among three policemen.

—Lad, I'm a good thief. Let me open the car.

Alexandra's citizens, incredulous to whom they're listening, don't believe anything. They're frightened by such an unusual event.

But Diego is paralysed for different reasons. The civil guard confessed to being a thief. In public. Naturally. As if it were the most normal thing in the world.

It's a perfect symbol of the new Spain being born. Spain, where even order representatives can confess their imperfections without fear. Spain, where honesty replaces official hypocrisy.

Civil Guard approaches the driver's door and begins manipulating it until he manages to open it with the skill of someone who, effectively, knows what he's doing.

—Come on, get in now... And go sleep...

Spain that confesses

Group members, distrustful, thank the guard and begin trying to accommodate eight bodies within that cubic metre of space, which is tiny, as the Seat 500s are.

Nobody explains how, but finally, everyone finds themselves inside a car. Fright had enhanced alcohol levels in the body. So everyone felt a disconnection between brain impulses and delayed reactions in motor action.

Clumsiness at that hour was prominent among the friend group. With countless hands fighting for the steering wheel, they say good morning to the guards and begin their journey to the hostel area.

Diego drives, thinking about what he's just witnessed. Not only the conversation between Capote and Marilyn, but that surreal moment with the civil guard.

It's as if the entire night had been a metaphor for the Spanish transformation. Body liberation on the beach, sexual freedom in a discotheque, brutal honesty in a conversation between two geniuses, and finally, a civil guard confessing to being a thief.

Spain is learning to tell the truth.

Mediterranean dawn

On the other side of the Mediterranean, the first call to prayer is heard from Tangier's Great Mosque. They remind Felipe González about how, in such a short time, Spanish society had changed so much.

He wonders, from his golden exile in Morocco, whilst preparing an electoral strategy: What will become of those Panama documents arriving decades later?

Felipe doesn't know that in forty years, Spain will have to face corruption scandals that would make the transition secrets seem innocent. He doesn't know that honest Spain they're building will have to deal with even more complex truths about money, power and institutional lies.

Whilst Seat takes the highway towards extinct Duques de Palma avenue.

________________________________________

Chapter XIII: Exodus to Sand

Truth Under Moon At four in the morning, when alcohol had dissolved the last inhibitions and Moroccan chocolate had liberated the final mental bonds, it was inevitable.

Nocturnal migration

Young people began abandoning Magaluf's Alexandra in waves. Not coordinated, but obeying primitive instinct telling them it was time to complete what had begun on the dance floor.

Diego observed the exodus from the bar where Capote and Marilyn continued their existential conversation. He saw how couples and groups headed towards exits, carrying discreetly stolen alcohol bottles from the bar, hashish cigarettes hidden in pockets, and that sexual urgency characterising those who've understood life is finite.

—Do you know where they're going? —Marilyn asked Truman.

—To do what we can no longer do, —he replied—. To believe love is eternal whilst it lasts five hours.

Beach as existential cathedral

Magaluf beach became an open-air cathedral where the only remaining sacrament in disbelieving Spain was celebrated: the encounter of two bodies affirming their existence through pleasure.

Ann-Charlotte and the young Catalan she'd met that night spread a towel on the sand still warm from the day. He whispered to her in Catalan, which she didn't understand, but which excited her precisely for its incomprehensibility. She responded in French, converting seduction into a corporeal translation exercise.

They kissed whilst Mediterranean waves marked the rhythm of their caresses. Their hands explored skin territories day's sun had bronzed and the moon now converted into silvered landscapes.

Free tits under stars

Marie had found Jamaican DJ Winston after he finished his set. Now they lay on sand, she with naked breasts reflecting moonlight, he caressing that white European skin contrasting with his black Caribbean hands.

—In Jamaica, we say when a woman removes clothes under the moon, she's praying, —Winston whispered.

—And what does she ask in her prayer? —asked Marie.

—That time stops. That moon be witness. That someone remembers her exactly as she is in this moment.

Her breasts moved to the rhythm of accelerated breathing. No shame existed. No sin. Only two humans affirming their right to exist entirely in a world that had taught them pleasure was guilt.

Sex as resistance

Cindy and Capote Fuerte had found a more private cove, away from the main couples' bustle. He knew she'd return to Scotland in a week. She knew he'd stay in Mallorca forever. That certainty of imminent separation converted every caress into an act of resistance against time.

They made love with desperation of one knowing they're living something unrepeatable. Capote fuerte spoke to her in Mallorcan, a dialect unique to the island, as if wanting to mark her with sounds she could never hear anywhere else in the world.

—Ets la meva vida, —he told her whilst penetrating slowly, savouring every second.

—I don't understand, but I feel it, —she responded, letting unknown words become music.

Moon as the only god

Dozens of couples populated Magaluf beach that dawn. Spaniards with Germans, French with Catalans, English with Andalusians, Italians with Basques. Europe reconciled with itself on Mediterranean sand.

Full moon observed them like only god they could still believe in. God that didn't judge, didn't condemn, simply illuminated moving bodies as if they were pagan offering to life itself.

Diego had followed couples to the beach, not as a voyeur but as a chronicler. He understood he was witnessing the exact moment when Spain stopped being Catholic and became Mediterranean.

Existential message

Whilst observing those intertwined bodies under the moon, Diego understood the message he'd been seeking all night:

Life is a mental illness that can only be cured with more life.

Marilyn Monroe had died from having too much life for a single body. Truman Capote was dying from having too much lucidity for single mind. Marilyn Zetterlund survived having too much pain for a single heart.

But these young people on the sand had found a temporary cure: sex as affirmation, alcohol as disinhibitor, tits as freedom declaration, theft of forbidden moments, chocolate of bronzed skin under the moon.

Authenticity is the only imperative.

On Magaluf beach, under the summer '79 moon, Spain learnt its most important lesson:

Only authenticity saves. Only confession liberates. Only honesty redeems.

A civil guard confessing to being a thief is more moral than a saint hiding sins.

A writer betraying friends for the truth is more valuable than a courtier protecting elegant lies.

Mother confessing sometimes hating dead daughter is more human than one pretending perfect grief.

Sartrean ending

Couples on the sand weren't making love. They were choosing to exist. They were refusing nothingness. They were shouting at death, it wasn't their time yet.

Because that's what Sartre never said, but '79 Spain discovered: freedom isn't a burden, it's a privilege. Existential anguish isn't a curse, it's the price of being alive.

And being alive, with all its contradictions, lies, betrayals, mental illnesses, moral thefts and forbidden chocolates, is infinitely better than the alternative.

On Magaluf sand, whilst waves whispered secrets in ancestral Arabic and moon-blessed bodies that had decided to be free, Spain finished being born.

Not as a political concept, but as an existential attitude.

As a country that has learnt honesty, however brutal, is always better than hypocrisy, however elegant.

Final message:

Life is a mental illness that can only be cured by living more intensely.

Spain, 1979: The year we learnt that confessing is more revolutionary than hiding.

The year Magaluf's moon witnessed the naked truth.

End

"Alone like astronauts facing spatial night, but together on Mediterranean sand."

_______________________________________

Germán & Co 8/9/25 Germán & Co 8/9/25

Kenya’s Geothermal Ascent: The ‘Iceland of Africa’ Powers a Green Industrial Revolution…

The incredible surge of solar power in Kenya

Key Insights
Kenya stands as a rising powerhouse in the global transition to clean energy, with solar power at the forefront of its green revolution. Blessed with abundant sunlight year-round, the country is increasingly harnessing solar energy to meet its growing demand for electricity. With an average of 5 to 6 hours of sunshine per day across most regions, Kenya’s solar potential is unmatched in Africa, positioning it as a leader in the continent’s renewable energy race.
The government’s commitment to sustainable energy is reflected in ambitious national policies, such as the Least Cost Power Development Plan, which prioritizes renewable sources like solar. Private sector investments in solar farms are rapidly growing, with large-scale projects like the Garissa Solar Power Plant—Africa’s largest solar farm at the time of its completion—leading the way.
Kenya is also making strides in off-grid solar solutions, providing clean, affordable energy to rural areas where traditional power infrastructure is sparse. Solar home systems and mini-grids are lighting up remote communities, lifting people out of energy poverty while reducing reliance on expensive and polluting kerosene.
As the country continues to invest in solar infrastructure, Kenya is poised to not only meet its energy needs but also emerge as a regional hub for renewable energy, driving economic growth and environmental sustainability. With solar power at the heart of its energy transition, Kenya is building a future of resilience, opportunity, and clean energy leadership in Africa.

Not a Single Penny Has Found Its Way into Our Piggy Bank in 2025

“Quarter of a million eyes have now landed on our work at Energy Central—a milestone that still feels electric. I can still see Matt Chester’s message popping up: “Fancy sharing your piece on our platform?” One word—absolutely—set the spark. Today, that spark has become a blazing beacon. Cheers, Matt, for opening the door; here’s to the next 250 k…

Under the clear-eyed wisdom of Aristotle—who in Nicomachean Ethics celebrated generosity as the art of giving just the right amount, to the right cause, at the perfect moment—we declare with steadfast resolve: throughout all of 2025, not one penny of support has graced our coffers.

This is our rallying cry to you:

Hoist our banner—like, repost, share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central: it costs nothing but echoes through halls of influence.

Lend your strength—if you can, please fuel the mission that keeps democracy honest and our energy future bright:

PayPal: gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com

IBAN: SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611

Swish: 076 423 90 79

Stripe: [Donation Link]

Every gift, no matter the size, fans the spark of independent thought into a roaring blaze. You’re not just donating—you’re empowering a truth-seeker in a world starved for clarity.

Remember, your donations are tax-deductible. Please check with your tax advisor for details.

Join us. Keep the flame burning. Light the way forward—in these darkening times, your support is the beacon guiding us all.

https://www.energycentral.com/energy-biz/post/kenya-s-geothermal-ascent-the-iceland-of-africa-powers-a-green-qJ1HKEVLGRHSc7w

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/germ%C3%A1n-toro-ghio-6b1853242_kenya-stands-as-a-rising-powerhouse-in-the-activity-7359754326178770944-x7-f?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAADxILSUBt02qlesQLQfoPztburmXuxyvJik

Germán & Co, Karlstad, Sweden | August 6, 2025

________________________________________

#RutoEnergyForKenyaTransformation

________________________________________

In the volcanic expanse of Kenya’s Great Rift Valley, where the earth breathes with the pulse of an ancient force, steam rises from deep within the earth. The land itself, a vivid canvas of raw, untamed beauty, hums with the energy of the ages, its power harnessed by turbines that sing the promise of a future born from nature’s heart. The Olkaria geothermal complex, a monument to human ingenuity and the planet’s eternal vitality, stands as a beacon of Africa’s renewable revolution. Here, amid the rugged beauty of this vast expanse, Kenya has achieved what many thought impossible: 90% of its electricity now flows from the clean, unyielding veins of nature.

But Kenya’s story is not only one of geothermal might—it is the story of a nation awakening to the boundless potential of its land and skies. The sun, casting its unrelenting rays across the plains, becomes both the promise and the engine of a new era. Beneath its brilliance, Kenya is transforming into the beating heart of Africa’s solar revolution. This land, kissed by the sun’s eternal glow, has become the promised land for solar farmers, a radiant utopia where fields of solar panels bloom like crops of light, fertile with possibility.

In the embrace of Kenya’s vibrant landscapes—from the rolling savannas to the rugged highlands—the nation is laying the foundation for Africa’s clean energy future. No longer defined by its dependency on fossil fuels, Kenya is rewriting the energy narrative, drawing from the raw forces of the earth and sky. The once distant dream of a sustainable, cleaner tomorrow is now a vivid, living reality. Kenya stands as the shining example of a nation in full bloom, where nature’s energy is harnessed not only for today but also as the guiding light toward a brighter, cleaner future. The country has become the crucible for a revolution—one of hope, resilience, and the promise of an Africa empowered by the brilliance of its sun.

________________________________________

The Geothermal Backbone

With 727 MW of installed geothermal capacity (7th globally), Kenya has exploited its tectonic advantage to develop Africa’s most resilient grid:

- 10,000 MW untapped potential in the Rift Valley—enough to power five Kenyas.

- Baseload costs of $0.07/kWh—less than half the price of diesel generation.

- State-owned KenGen (NSE: KEGN) produces 75% of the national power while attracting private capital through a hybrid ownership model.

“Geothermal isn’t intermittent. It provides 24/7 stability that makes solar integration economical,” says Rebecca Miano, KenGen CEO. “We’ve drilled 300+ wells domestically—no longer reliant on foreign expertise.”

#RutoEnergyForKenyaTransformation

________________________________________

Policy Catalyst: Ruto’s Green Industrial Vision

President William Ruto has positioned energy as the engine of Kenya’s economic transformation:

- 2024 Energy Reforms: Shattered transmission/distribution monopolies (KPLC/KETRACO), enabling private power sales.

- U.S. Partnership: Climate and Clean Energy Industrial Deal (May 2024) unlocking technology transfer.

- COP28 Commitment: Triple renewable capacity by 2030.

“Africa’s resources can catalyze green industrialization,” Ruto declared during his Washington visit. “We’re building export pathways to Ethiopia, Tanzania, and beyond.”

________________________________________

While geothermal anchors the grid, solar is scaling rapidly:

The Malindi Solar project, with a capacity of 40 MW, is operational and features a grid-synced system with geothermal backup. The Radiant Eldoret project, expected to achieve COD in 2025, offers 50 MW and is notable as the first private PPA following monopoly reforms. The Garissa Plant, currently expanding to 55 MW, operates as a UNDP-funded community hybrid model.

“We pay $0 for fuel and $22/MWh for solar—geothermal handles night peaks,” explains EPRA Director-General Daniel Kiptoo. “That’s why our industrial tariffs beat South Africa’s.”

________________________________________

Investment Landscape

Opportunities

- Geothermal Expansion: $4bn needed to reach 3,000 MW by 2030 (JICA, AfDB co-funding).

- Green Hydrogen: KenGen is piloting 5 MW electrolysis at Olkaria.

- Regional Exports: 200 MW Ethiopia link (2026), Oman undersea cable study.

Hurdles

- CAPEX Disparity: Solar costs $869,000/MW (3× European prices).

- Currency Risk: 82% of PPAs are USD-denominated (shilling volatility).

- Grid Constraints: 23% transmission losses in Northern corridors.

________________________________________

The Replicable Model

Kenya’s blueprint—prioritise baseload renewables before scaling variables**—is gaining continental traction:

- Ethiopia: Accelerating Corbetti geothermal (75 MW phase).

- Tanzania: Ngozi geothermal tender (Q1 2026).

- Rwanda: Lake Kivu methane-solar hybrids.

“Countries without oil are leapfrogging to geothermal-solar synergy,” notes IEA Africa Director Fatih Birol. “Kenya proves it’s bankable.”

________________________________________

Market Projections

The key targets for 2030 compared to 2025. Geothermal capacity is set to increase from 950 MW to 3,000 MW, while solar additions are projected to grow from 120 MW to 852 MW. Green hydrogen output aims to progress from the pilot phase to 500,000 tons per year. Additionally, the industrial tariff is expected to decrease from $0.10/kWh to $0.07/kWh.

________________________________________

Investor Takeaways

1. Play the Baseload: Geothermal offers 25-year PPAs with sovereign backing.

2. Hybrid Advantage: Solar + geothermal requires minimal storage CAPEX.

3. Follow Reform Momentum: Open access market cuts offtake risk.

4. Watch Currency Hedges: Partial local-currency PPAs emerging (e.g., Radiant Eldoret).

“Kenya isn’t just African Iceland—it’s a test lab for the Global South’s energy transition,” concludes James Mwangi, CEO of Equity Group. “The returns? As solid as the Rift Valley’s bedrock.”

Germán Toro Ghío leads Karlstad-based Germán Toro Ghío Strategic Energy Consulting, advising on African energy transitions.

Sources: EPRA, KenGen, IEA, AfDB, project developers.

________________________________________

Germán & Co 8/8/25 Germán & Co 8/8/25

The Electric Enigma: Where Light Particles Dance with Philosophy in the Age Beyond Carbon

COVID shutdowns exposed renewables' vulnerabilities—supply chain issues, equipment delays, and grid instability without backup. Limited storage and transmission highlight the need for a pragmatic mix of clean and flexible conventional power for reliable decarbonization.

Key Insights
The planet bakes while three-quarters of it lies behind a curtain of undrinkable seas and unused sunlight. Yet 750 million people still sleep in the half-dark, even as our machines learn to laugh, love and drain the very power we deny ourselves. The real issue is no longer technical but moral: will the next kilowatt illuminate human homes or humming data halls? If we embrace wind, sun and storage—a water-sparing trinity—we postpone the epilogue and write a prologue of hope. Freedom now crackles in the wires; the door is ajar. Either we step through and flood the night with our own light, or leave the future to wonder why we vanished.

Not a Single Penny Has Found Its Way into Our Piggy Bank in 2025

“Quarter of a million eyes have now landed on our work at Energy Central—a milestone that still feels electric. I can still see Matt Chester’s message popping up: “Fancy sharing your piece on our platform?” One word—absolutely—set the spark. Today, that spark has become a blazing beacon. Cheers, Matt, for opening the door; here’s to the next 250 k…

Under the clear-eyed wisdom of Aristotle—who in Nicomachean Ethics celebrated generosity as the art of giving just the right amount, to the right cause, at the perfect moment—we declare with steadfast resolve: throughout all of 2025, not one penny of support has graced our coffers.

This is our rallying cry to you:

Hoist our banner—like, repost, share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central: it costs nothing but echoes through halls of influence.

Lend your strength—if you can, please fuel the mission that keeps democracy honest and our energy future bright:

PayPal: gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com

IBAN: SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611

Swish: 076 423 90 79

Stripe: [Donation Link]

Every gift, no matter the size, fans the spark of independent thought into a roaring blaze. You’re not just donating—you’re empowering a truth-seeker in a world starved for clarity.

Remember, your donations are tax-deductible. Please check with your tax advisor for details.

Join us. Keep the flame burning. Light the way forward—in these darkening times, your support is the beacon guiding us all.

https://www.energycentral.com/renewables/post/the-electric-enigma-where-light-particles-dance-with-philosophy-in-the-WgQ9ge5sNTZ7Z48

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/electric-enigma-where-light-particles-dance-age-beyond-toro-ghio-ialaf

Germán & Co, Karlstad, Sweden | August 6, 2025

________________________________________

1) Prologue — Thirst, Circuits and Other Upside-Down Dreams

(with literary license from Sartre, Cortázar, and a hearty “chucha la huevada” from Chile)

Here we stand on a planet slowly roasting under the sun, cast adrift without an instruction manual: three-quarters of it sheathed in undrinkable salt water, oceans of photons we barely tap. Yet, seven hundred and fifty million people still fall asleep each night in primitive half-darkness. The right to electricity and water glimmers before us like the sliver of light beneath a locked door: we know a gentle push would open it, yet we freeze, fearing what lies beyond.

Meanwhile our engineers are schooling machines that already write poems, swap smiley faces and—so we're told—manage to fall in love through binary protocols. Is the energy we squabble over destined for them rather than for us? When the last human lamp goes out, will servers continue crackling inside vast concrete citadels—cold, hydrated—wondering why laughter no longer echoes down their corridors?

Cortázar might have called it another “night face up”: we dream of soaring towards bright cities, only to wake among darkened trees while the gods—be they fossil lobbies, greed or mere indifference—sharpen their spears. In the modern version of the myth, the fortunate queue at Cape Canaveral, hoping that one Tuesday Musk’s arrow will fly to Mars with provisions… and a one-way ticket.

Blimey, what a mad world we live in, a Chilean might exclaim at the paradox: sprawling solar farms capable of powering desalination plants to quench desert thirst—yet stranded by politics, pettiness or plain bureaucracy. We risk delivering water and volts to robotic heads that, in our absence, will only pine for the hands that fashioned them.

The question, then, stops being technical and becomes ontological: for whom shall we light the future? Equipping grids with virtual inertia, batteries and millisecond markets is not merely a matter of cost; it is a declaration of love—or abandonment—towards the human condition. If we chose wind, sun and storage—an almost water-free triad—we would buy time, salvage hope, and turn the half-light into a prologue, not an epilogue.

Sartre’s radical freedom crackles here among cables and pipes, waiting for our choice. We can keep dreaming face-up while the gods close in, or open the door and let the light—our light, not the machines’—wash over the desert and the night.

________________________________________

2) When the lights went out: Spain's existential grid moment

28 April 2025 began like any other spring day on the Iberian Peninsula. Solar panels gleamed across Andalusian hillsides, generating 18,068 MW of clean electricity—53% of the peninsula's power. Then, at 12:33 PM, existence met absurdity in a cascade of electrons suddenly absent. Within five seconds, 15 GW of generation vanished, demand plummeted from nearly 27,000 MW to under 13,000 MW, and an entire energy system faced the brutal reality of physical laws.

Spain's blackout was not merely a technical failure but a philosophical awakening. The grid had become too clean, too fast, too divorced from the spinning turbines that once provided electrical inertia through sheer mechanical mass. Inverter-based solar systems, for all their elegance, lack the kinetic energy reserves that synchronous generators naturally provide. When disturbances hit, electrons change direction with digital precision but without the cushioning momentum of steel rotors spinning at 3,000 revolutions per minute.

This is the Rate of Change of Frequency (RoCoF) paradox—the cleaner our grid becomes, the more violently it responds to disruption. Modern power systems can experience frequency changes of 2-5 Hz per second, compared to 0.5 Hz per second in traditional grids. Protection systems, designed for gentler slopes, trigger cascading disconnections as they interpret rapid frequency changes as system threats.

The Spain incident represents a broader existential tension in grid management. Virtual inertia technologies can now replicate the stabilizing effects of spinning mass, with advanced battery systems demonstrating 49% improvements in frequency response and 36% reductions in RoCoF events. Yet deploying these solutions requires admitting that progress creates new vulnerabilities even as it solves old problems.

1: Grid Inertia Requirements vs. Available Resources (2025)

Region Min. Inertia Req. (GVA·s) | Current Synthetic (GVA·s) | Gap | Timeline

UK National Grid 140 → 102 | 36 | -66 | 2026

ERCOT Texas 100-120 | 45 | -55 | 2027

ENTSO-E 450-500 180 -270 2028 | PJM 200-250 | 85 | -115 | 2029

________________________________________

3) The great electrification: progress and its discontents

While engineers grapple with frequency response markets and synthetic inertia, nearly 750 million humans still inhabit pre-electric darkness. The International Energy Agency reports that 92% of humanity now enjoys electricity access—a remarkable achievement—yet the remaining 8% face a profound form of technological alienation. These are not merely statistics but lives unfolding without the electromagnetic foundation of modern existence.

Sub-Saharan Africa bears the heaviest burden, with 565-600 million people—85% of the global access deficit—living beyond the electric grid's embrace. Even more paradoxically, 447 million people don't use electricity despite official electrification status, revealing the gap between connection and genuine access. Rwanda offers hope with its transformation from 6% electricity access in 2009 to 75% in 2024, demonstrating that political will and smart policy can transcend geographical constraints.

The off-grid revolution presents its own philosophical puzzles. Solar home systems served 20 million additional people in 2024, bringing the cumulative total to 138 million who have bypassed centralized grids entirely. This distributed energy democracy challenges traditional utility monopolies while creating new forms of technological dependence. East Africa leads with 6.6 million new solar kit sales, yet West Africa saw a 33% decline due to currency pressures and inflation—proving that even photons remain subject to economic gravity.

Mini-grids require an estimated investment of $50 billion annually to achieve universal access by 2030, yet current funding barely reaches $3 billion. The irony is palpable: humanity possesses the technical knowledge to electrify the world while lacking the financial imagination to make it happen.

________________________________________

4) The economics of electrons: when markets meet molecules

Energy costs in 2025 tell a story of technological triumph shadowed by political paralysis. Solar photovoltaics now average $58 per MWh without subsidies, while onshore wind ranges from $37 to $86 per MWh. These represent the lowest costs in human history for harnessing renewable energy, making them cheaper than fossil alternatives in 91% of new installations globally.

Yet this cost revolution coexists with persistent market failures. Nuclear power costs $141-220 per MWh, with Small Modular Reactors proving even more expensive than anticipated. NuScale's pioneering SMR project collapsed after costs soared from $58 to $89 per MWh—a 53% increase that vaporized Utah's nuclear ambitions. The nuclear renaissance faces a cruel irony: as climate urgency intensifies, atomic energy becomes economically uncompetitive with renewables plus storage.

Battery storage costs plummeted to $104 per MWh in 2024, down 33% in a single year, with projections reaching $53 per MWh by 2035. This represents a 93% cost decline since 2010, enabling grid-scale deployments that would have seemed fantastical a decade ago. Global battery deployment reached 205 GWh in 2024—a 53% increase that signals the dawn of the storage age.

2) Levelized Cost Evolution 2020-2025 ($/MWh)

Technology 2020 2022 2024 2025 % Change

Utility Solar PV 58 52 60 58 ±0%

Onshore Wind 52 45 56 62 +19%

Gas Combined Cycle 45 42 52 79 +76%

Battery Storage 188 132 104 93 -51%

Nuclear 163 167 181 181 +11%

The numbers reveal a fundamental reshaping of energy economics. Gas plants face volatile fuel costs that have nearly doubled their lifetime expenses, while renewables enjoy virtually zero marginal costs once installed. This creates the negative pricing paradox—wholesale electricity prices went negative for 8% of hours in Finland and 15% in Southern California during 2024, signalling oversupply of clean energy that markets struggle to value properly.

________________________________________

5) Climate physics: when thermodynamics becomes theology

The year 2024 carved itself into climate history with existential precision. Global temperatures reached 1.54-1.60°C above pre-industrial levels—the first year to exceed the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C guardrail. On July 22, Earth's daily average temperature hit 17.16°C, a record that would have been unthinkable just decades ago. More ominously, atmospheric CO2 increased by 3.75 parts per million—the largest single-year jump ever recorded—reaching 422.8 ppm globally.

These numbers carry theological weight for the electricity sector. With only 130 billion tonnes of CO2 budget remaining for 1.5°C stabilization, humanity has roughly three to six years of current emissions before crossing into uncharted climate territory. The carbon budget functions like a cosmic credit limit, and we're rapidly approaching insolvency.

The water-energy nexus intensifies these pressures. Thermal power plants consume 1,900-4,540 liters per MWh for closed-cycle cooling, while once-through systems withdraw 75,710-189,270 liters per MWh. As droughts become more severe—Pacific Northwest hydropower fell 23% below average in 2024—the electricity sector confronts its fundamental dependence on water cycles increasingly disrupted by the very emissions it generates.

3) Climate Tipping Points and Energy System Implications

Tipping Element Current Status Energy Impact Timeline

- Atlantic Ocean Circulation: "On route" to collapse

- European cooling demand: +40% by 2030-2080

- Arctic Sea Ice: Record December 2024 low

- Shipping route changes: 2030-2050

- Amazon Rainforest: Approaching dieback

- Carbon sink to source: 2040-2070

- Greenland Ice Sheet: Accelerating melt

- Sea level rise affecting coastal plants: 2050-2200

Paradoxically, renewable energy itself approaches positive tipping points. Solar deployment now doubles every 1-2 years in many regions, with exponential growth curves that appear "unstoppable" according to the International Energy Agency. Electric vehicles captured 15% of global vehicle sales in 2024, with ranges tripling over the past decade. These positive feedbacks suggest technological lock-in toward clean energy systems, even as political resistance intensifies.

________________________________________

6) Markets in motion: when capital discovers consciousness

The year 2024 witnessed an extraordinary awakening of financial consciousness around electricity systems. Utility stocks delivered 27% returns—their best performance since 2000—as investors discovered that artificial intelligence and data centers would drive electricity demand growth from historical 1-2% annually to 6-8% over the next decade. Vistra Corporation surged 252% as markets finally grasped that grid-scale battery storage represents the new electricity infrastructure.

Global energy investment exceeded $3 trillion for the first time in human history, with $2.1 trillion flowing to clean energy technologies. This represents humanity's largest coordinated investment in any technology transformation, yet it's still only 37% of the $5.6 trillion annually required for net-zero by 2050. The gap between what's needed and what's happening reveals the tragic disconnect between financial capability and collective will.

Pension funds increasingly recognize electricity infrastructure as essential portfolio elements. Nearly 97% of UK institutional investors increased renewable energy allocations, while major funds like CalPERS and CPP now dedicate specific allocations to climate infrastructure. The transition from fossil fuel assets to renewable infrastructure represents the largest wealth transfer in human history—from extractive industries to generative technologies.

Carbon pricing revenues exceeded $100 billion globally in 2024, with 80 active carbon pricing instruments covering 28% of global emissions. The European Union's Emissions Trading System generated €43.6 billion, while California's carbon prices averaged $42 per metric ton. Yet less than 1% of global emissions face prices high enough to drive rapid decarbonization, revealing the political economy's failure to price existential risk appropriately.

________________________________________

7) Policy paradoxes: when technocracy meets democracy

The electricity sector's policy landscape in 2025 resembles a Kafkaesque bureaucracy—simultaneously rational and absurd. Fast frequency response markets successfully incentivized battery deployment, with storage systems capturing 87% of ancillary service revenues in Texas. Yet interconnection queues contain 2,600 GW of proposed projects—eight times more capacity than exists today—waiting an average of four years for grid connection approvals.

FERC Order 2023 attempted to address interconnection delays through deposit requirements and withdrawal penalties, yet regional grid operators like PJM suspended new request reviews until 2025. The result is a policy paralysis where regulatory solutions create new bottlenecks faster than they resolve existing ones.

Demand response programs offer similar contradictions. The International Energy Agency's Net Zero Scenario requires 500 GW of demand response capacity by 2030—a tenfold increase from current levels—yet deployment lags dramatically behind requirements. FERC Order 2222 enables distributed energy aggregation but won't achieve full implementation until 2026-2030 across various grid regions.

The European Union's electricity market reforms represent the most ambitious attempt at systemic change. The Market Design Directive maintains marginal pricing while introducing two-way contracts for difference and mandatory long-term contracting for publicly funded renewable projects. Yet implementation depends on national transposition by January 2025, creating regulatory fragmentation across member states.

4) Policy Implementation Scorecard (2024-2025)

Policy Area Success Scores and Key Achievements:

- Carbon Pricing: 7/10, over €100B revenue, coverage under 30% of emissions.

- Interconnection: 3/10, FERC Order 2023, 2,600 GW queue backlog.

- Storage Markets: 8/10, 205 GWh deployed.

- Rural deployment lag.

- Frequency Response: 9/10, battery dominance.

- Limited geographic scope.

- Demand Response: 4/10, progress with Order 2222, 10x gap compared to NZ scenario.

________________________________________

8) Cultural currents: when electrons meet emotions

Beneath technical specifications and policy frameworks flows a deeper cultural current that shapes electricity futures more powerfully than engineering analysis. Republican support for solar panels declined from 84% to 64% between 2020 and 2024, while wind support dropped from 75% to 56%. These numbers reveal how partisan polarization increasingly defines energy technology acceptance, transcending rational cost-benefit calculations.

The populist backlash against technocratic energy policy reflects deeper tensions about democratic participation versus expert authority. Anti-net zero populism combines legitimate grievances about top-down policy imposition with alternative technical expertise that challenges mainstream climate science. Right-wing populists exploit the reality that carbon pricing often impacts working-class communities most directly, while clean energy benefits accrue disproportionately to affluent early adopters.

Energy justice movements respond by advocating for community ownership and democratic control over electricity infrastructure. Community choice aggregation programs now serve millions of Americans, while municipal utilities offer alternatives to investor-owned monopolies. These efforts recognize that electricity systems embody power relationships—both literal and metaphorical—that require democratic legitimacy to sustain long-term transitions.

The narrative dimension proves crucial for public acceptance. Stories about energy independence resonate more powerfully than technical arguments about grid stability. Local job creation narratives overcome abstract climate benefits. Cultural meanings attributed to energy technologies—from solar panels as symbols of self-reliance to wind turbines as landscape intrusions—shape policy outcomes more decisively than economic analysis.

Research reveals that 54% of Americans qualify as energy-burdened, spending excessive portions of income on electricity. Fixed charges disproportionately impact low-income households, while disadvantaged communities face pollution burdens from legacy energy infrastructure. These inequities fuel resistance to transitions perceived as benefiting affluent environmentalists while imposing costs on vulnerable populations.

________________________________________

9) Philosophical foundations: authenticity in the age of algorithms

The electricity sector's transformation raises profound questions about human agency in technological systems. Are we freely choosing renewable energy futures, or does technological determinism drive transitions according to cost curves and physical laws? Sartre's analysis of authentic existence becomes relevant: we remain condemned to be free even within technological constraints, bearing full responsibility for collective energy choices.

The paradox of progress permeates every aspect of electricity modernization. Smart grids enable efficiency and renewable integration while creating new cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Battery storage provides grid flexibility while generating mining impacts for lithium and cobalt. Nuclear power offers carbon-free baseload electricity while producing radioactive waste lasting millennia.

Virtual inertia technologies exemplify this paradox perfectly. Engineers create software algorithms that mimic the stabilizing effects of spinning generators, substituting digital precision for mechanical momentum. These systems work effectively—battery storage systems now provide synthetic inertia equivalent to traditional power plants—yet they represent a fundamental abstraction from physical reality. Electrons follow electromagnetic laws, but their flow increasingly depends on computational algorithms subject to coding errors, cyberattacks, and system failures.

The existential weight of electricity choices becomes apparent through climate statistics. Each kilowatt-hour generated from fossil fuels contributes incrementally to atmospheric CO2 concentrations that will persist for centuries. Individual consumption decisions aggregate into collective outcomes that determine planetary habitability for future generations. The abstract nature of electricity—invisible, instantaneous, seemingly unlimited—obscures these profound consequences.

Technological alienation manifests through increasing dependence on systems beyond individual understanding or control. How many electricity users comprehend the complex coordination required to maintain 60 Hz frequency across continental grids? The growing sophistication of electricity infrastructure—from advanced inverters to machine learning algorithms—creates capabilities that exceed human cognitive capacity while requiring human judgment for ethical deployment.

________________________________________

10) Epilogue — Between Gloom and Authentic Lightning

After pages of figures and dilemmas, everything boils down to a single instant: the click of a switch. That tiny gesture decides whether humankind endures or yields the stage to chilled servers no one will ever hug.

The year 2025 leaves us a double lesson. On the one hand, the plunge in solar‑wind LCOE and the maturation of storage prove that energy abundance is technically feasible. On the other, Spain’s blackout and the race against the carbon‑budget clock expose our institutional fragility. Having the tool without the wisdom is like holding lightning captive in a paper cage.

This calls for what we might term electric authenticity: acknowledging the climatic, social and existential consequences of every kilowatt. It means pricing carbon and water at their real cost, guaranteeing universal access as a human right, and designing grids that strengthen democratic participation. Lucidity, not altruism: it is always cheaper to light than to rebuild after collapse.

If the kilowatt‑hour continues to subsidise the drying of rivers and the gigawatt‑hour to feed machines that send empty hearts, we shall be the first civilisation to dig its digital cave only to crawl back inside it. Another storyline is possible: paying for every millisecond of flexibility, letting sun, wind and batteries sustain the polis without devouring it, and turning the half‑light into a prologue rather than a finale.

There are no spectators left. Every project, every vote, every article is a cog in the machinery of tomorrow. We can bargain with the shadows… or seize the lightning before the thermometer sets the world ablaze.

Open the door. Let the lightning in. And this time, may humanity arrive on time at its feast of light.

________________________________________

Sources and References

Grid Stability and Technical Analysis

Analysis of Spain's April 2025 Blackout: Causes, Low-Inertia Grid Risks, and Protection Solutions. SMC International. https://smcint.com/electrical-testing/analysis-of-spains-april-2025-blackout-causes-low-inertia-grid-risks-and-protection-solutions/
Grid frequency volatility in future low inertia scenarios: Challenges and mitigation options. ScienceDirect.
A new enhanced synthetic inertia system for stability improvement of hybrid AC/DC grids using MMC integrated with batteries. ScienceDirect.
Stability Pathfinders: what they mean for battery energy storage. Modo Energy Research.
Batteries are making the grid more reliable: NERC. Utility Dive.
ERCOT's Ancillary Services: a beginner's guide. Modo Energy Research.

Climate Data and Global Warming

State of the climate: 2024 sets a new record as the first year above 1.5C. Carbon Brief. https://www.carbonbrief.org/state-of-the-climate-2024-sets-a-new-record-as-the-first-year-above-1-5c/
Copernicus: 2024 is the first year to exceed 1.5°C above pre-industrial level. Copernicus Climate Change Service. https://climate.copernicus.eu/copernicus-2024-first-year-exceed-15degc-above-pre-industrial-level
Guest post: Why 2024's global temperatures were unprecedented, but not surprising. Carbon Brief.
Global Climate Highlights 2024. Copernicus Climate Change Service.
Climate change: atmospheric carbon dioxide. NOAA Climate.gov.
6 Years Before Carbon Budget to Limit Warming to 1.5C Runs Out. Earth.Org.
Fossil fuel CO2 emissions increase again in 2024. Global Carbon Budget.

Energy Costs and Technology

Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2024. International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). https://www.irena.org/Publications/2025/Jun/Renewable-Power-Generation-Costs-in-2024
Global Cost of Renewables to Continue Falling in 2025 as China Extends Manufacturing Lead. BloombergNEF.
Clean power tech costs to fall to record lows in 2025. Power Engineering International.
Eye-popping new cost estimates released for NuScale small modular reactor. IEEFA.
Small Modular Reactors: Still too expensive, too slow and too risky. IEEFA.
Utility-Scale Battery Storage. Annual Technology Baseline 2024, NREL.
A 2025 Update on Utility-Scale Energy Storage Procurements. Morgan Lewis.

Energy Access and Development

Tracking SDG 7 – The Energy Progress Report 2025. World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/energy/publication/tracking-sdg-7-the-energy-progress-report-2025
2025 Tracking SDG7 Report. World Health Organization.
Electricity access continues to improve in 2024 – after first global setback in decades. International Energy Agency.
Beyond access: 1.18 billion in energy poverty. UNDP Data Futures Exchange.
GOGLA: Off-grid solar delivers energy access to 20 million people in 2024. PV Tech.
East Africa drove 71% of global off-grid solar kit sales in 2024. Ecofin Agency.
Electricity Prices Drop Steadily Across Africa. News Central TV.

Energy Storage and Battery Markets

Global BESS deployments soared 53% in 2024. Energy-Storage.News.
Grid-scale Battery Market Share, Size and Industry Growth Analysis 2024-2030. IndustryARC.
Energy Storage Rides a Wave of Growth but Uncertainty Looms: A Global Opportunity and Regulatory Roadmap for 2025. Morgan Lewis.
U.S. battery capacity increased 66% in 2024. U.S. Energy Information Administration.
US energy storage deployments jumped 86% year over year to 10.5 GWh in Q2. Utility Dive.

Water-Energy Nexus

Water for Power Plant Cooling. Union of Concerned Scientists. https://www.ucs.org/resources/water-power-plant-cooling
Reducing water consumption for cooling of thermal generation plants. European Environment Agency.
Exploring the Water-Energy Nexus on World Energy Efficiency Day 2024. Smart Water Magazine.
Drought conditions reduce hydropower generation, particularly in the Pacific Northwest. U.S. Energy Information Administration.
U.S. hydropower generation expected to increase by 6% in 2024 following last year's lows. U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Market Analysis and Investment

Utility Outlook - First Quarter 2025 Insights. Gabelli.
Utility Stocks 2025 Outlook: Back to Normal? Morningstar.
3 Utility Stocks Leading the Surge in 2024 - Keep These on Your Radar. Investing.com.
Energy Transition Investment Trends. BloombergNEF.
ESG Investing Market Size to Surpass USD 167.49 Trillion by 2034. Precedence Research.
Pension schemes increasing allocations to renewable energy. Pensions Age Magazine.

Policy and Regulation

Explainer on the Interconnection Final Rule. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. https://www.ferc.gov/explainer-interconnection-final-rule
Key findings – State of Energy Policy 2024. International Energy Agency.
Carbon pricing revenues exceeded $100 billion in 2024. World Bank.
2024 Carbon Market Report: a stable and well-functioning market. European Commission.
Electricity Market Design: Deadline for transposing new rules into national law. European Commission.
FERC Order No. 2222 Explainer: Facilitating Participation in Electricity Markets by Distributed Energy Resources. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Energy System Analysis

Executive summary – Electricity 2025. International Energy Agency. https://www.iea.org/reports/electricity-2025/executive-summary
Global trends – Global Energy Review 2025. International Energy Agency.
Prices – Electricity 2025. International Energy Agency.
Global Energy Outlook 2025: Headwinds and Tailwinds in the Energy Transition. Resources for the Future.
World Energy Investment 2024. International Energy Agency.

Social and Political Dimensions

How Americans View National, Local and Personal Energy Choices. Pew Research Center.
The Rise of Anti-Net Zero Populism in the UK: Comparing Rhetorical Strategies for Climate Policy Dismantling. Taylor & Francis Online.
The Populist Revolt Against Climate Policy. Foreign Affairs.
The politics of populism and climate action. E3G.
Energy Accessibility. U.S. Department of Energy.
Electricity Regulation with Equity and Justice for All. Berkeley Lab News Center.

Interconnection and Grid Development

Grid connection backlog grows by 30% in 2023, dominated by requests for solar, wind, and energy storage. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
Queued Up: 2024 Edition, Characteristics of Power Plants Seeking Transmission Interconnection. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
Demand response. International Energy Agency.
Access to electricity – SDG7: Data and Projections. International Energy Agency.

Philosophical and Conceptual Frameworks

Existentialism. Wikipedia.
What Is Existentialism? An Ethics Explainer. The Ethics Centre.
Climate crisis: How 'positive tipping points' could save the planet. World Economic Forum.
When it comes to solar power, we may have already reached a climate transition tipping point. World Economic Forum.

________________________________________

Join us to support independent geopolitical and energy analysis.

In a world overflowing with information, we stand as your trusted source for clarity and truth in geopolitics and energy. Your support powers our mission, and together, we can illuminate the complex forces shaping our global landscape.

We can't do it without you. As inflation rises and platforms evolve, our content battles to be seen and heard. We're committed to delivering top-notch analysis with the best tools and insights, but we need your help to keep our voice strong and independent.

Here's how you can make a difference:

Engage with Us: Like, share, and repost our content on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central. It's a simple click that amplifies our reach and impact.
Be Part of the Conversation: Comment on our posts, share your thoughts, and let us know what topics matter most to you. Your input shapes our content and keeps our community vibrant.
Support Our Mission: If you can, consider contributing to help us continue our work. Every bit helps us keep the flame of independent analysis burning bright.

Ways to Contribute:

PayPal: gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com
IBAN: SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611
Swish: 076 423 90 79

Your support, whether through engagement or contributions, fuels the insights and knowledge we all rely on. Together, we can navigate these turbulent times and shed light on the path forward. Thank you for standing with us. Let's continue to explore, analyze, and understand our world together.

Germán & Co 8/7/25 Germán & Co 8/7/25

USELESS IN THE DARK…

Key Insights
Covid-era shutdowns exposed renewables’ hidden fragilities: single-country supply chains, multi-year equipment delays, and grids that still collapse without gas or other dispatchable backup. Batteries can’t yet bridge multi-day lulls; transmission builds lag demand. Until storage, minerals, and wires scale dramatically, a pragmatic mix—clean power plus flexible conventional capacity—remains the only path to reliable decarbonisation.

Not a Single Penny Has Found Its Way into Our Piggy Bank in 2025

Under the clear-eyed wisdom of Aristotle—who in Nicomachean Ethics celebrated generosity as the art of giving just the right amount, to the right cause, at the perfect moment—we declare with steadfast resolve: throughout all of 2025, not one penny of support has graced our coffers.

This is our rallying cry to you:

Hoist our banner—like, repost, share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central: it costs nothing but echoes through halls of influence.

Lend your strength—if you can, please fuel the mission that keeps democracy honest and our energy future bright:

PayPal: gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com

IBAN: SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611

Swish: 076 423 90 79

Stripe: [Donation Link]

Every gift, no matter the size, fans the spark of independent thought into a roaring blaze. You’re not just donating—you’re empowering a truth-seeker in a world starved for clarity.

Remember, your donations are tax-deductible. Please check with your tax advisor for details.

Join us. Keep the flame burning. Light the way forward—in these darkening times, your support is the beacon guiding us all.

https://www.energycentral.com/energy-biz/post/useless-in-the-dark-MpR8wUw6Y2nTSnJ

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/useless-dark-germ%25C3%25A1n-toro-ghio-hhlmf

https://x.com/Germantoroghio/status/1953249366585827704

Andrés Gluski, Chief Executive and President of AES Corporation

Germán & Co, Karlstad, Sweden | August 6, 2025

________________________________________

Why gigawatts — not gigaflops — will crown tomorrow’s AI super-powers

Once more, the visionary and wise CEO and President of AES Corporation warns:
“The smartest chips on Earth are useless in the dark.” — Andrés Gluski, Need for Speed: The Key to Winning the AI Race, 4 June 2025

________________________________________

Prologue | Early signals, broader worries

Before kilowatts eclipsed algorithms in his speeches, Andrés Gluski was already arguing that natural gas would remain the critical “safety-valve” fuel while grids scaled renewables and storage.¹ His point was brutally pragmatic: windless nights and cloud-blanketed mornings do not wait for policy targets.

I remember one dawn in 2022 when an unexpected e-mail from Andrés landed in the senior staff inboxes. He urged “preventive measures against an incipient monkey-pox outbreak”, warning that supply-chain and construction crews could be sidelined just as the energy transition was accelerating. At the time, it felt alarmist. Yet, only months later, Wuhan-centred lockdowns and a second global health scare froze ports, delayed turbine gearboxes and reminded us that energy security is inseparable from public-health foresight. Gluski’s instinct for looming risk frames the question we face today: Will we build enough reliable power before the next disruption turns the lights off?

________________________________________

1 │ From classroom recipes to terawatt appetites

A textbook algorithm is “a finite set of steps that yields a result.” Euclid’s divisor fits on a scrap of papyrus; a four-line Python sort runs on a phone. But today’s large-language models sprawl across trillions of parameters. One Nvidia GB200 “Blackwell” rack of 72 GPUs draws roughly 120 kW; a 30-rack pod crosses 3.5 MW, rivalling a utility-scale solar plant at noon. Code has become an industrial appetite measured in terawatt-hours.

Gluski’s June essay reduces the problem to three words: programming, computing, energy. On the first two fronts, parity or U.S. advantage may hold; on the third he fears a strategic shortfall if America cannot “build as much new power as is possible with the technologies we already have.”

________________________________________

2 │ The shock ahead

The International Energy Agency projects that data-centre electricity use will more than double to ≈ 945 TWh by 2030 — about Japan’s entire demand today. Chip generations refresh every 18 months, yet turbines, transformers and 500-kV lines take close to a decade to materialise. The AI race is therefore an engineering marathon, not a coding sprint.

________________________________________

3 │ America’s 2.6-terawatt traffic jam

By December 2024, projects totalling ≈ 2 600 GW — over 95 % solar, wind and storage — languished in U.S. grid-connection queues; the median wait is five years. Two new GPU generations will ship in that span while their promised electrons remain on paper.

________________________________________

4 │ Beijing’s concrete advantage

China erected 268 GW of wind-and-solar capacity in the first half of 2025 — practically a whole U.S. renewables fleet in six months. Simultaneously it began 94.5 GW of new coal plants in 2024, the decade’s peak. The dual-track policy — clean narrative, fossil insurance — means AI campuses seldom wait for kilowatts. Speed beats purity.

________________________________________

5 │ Washington’s nuclear moon-shot

On 31 July 2025, President Trump ordered the Department of Energy to bring three civilian small-modular reactors (SMRs) to “criticality” by 4 July 2026 — a timeline most engineers call “heroic.” If the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can license at silicon speed, on-site nukes may yet anchor the hyperscale grid; if not, the decree risks becoming another paper reactor.

________________________________________

6 │ The wire that wasn’t built

Generation is useless without wires. DOE’s latest Transmission Facilitation tranche backs only ≈ 1 000 mi of new high-voltage line — trivial beside China’s annual 13 000 km of UHV corridors. Meanwhile lead times for large power transformers have stretched to 2.3–4 years, double 2021 levels, with costs up more than 70 %.

________________________________________

7 │ Global cross-winds: war, fuel and dependence

Three years into the Ukraine war, Russian pipeline flows are down but Russian LNG still slips into Europe: imports edged higher in 2024-25 even as U.S. cargoes fell. A leaked EEAS brief warns that continued reliance on Moscow’s molecules could “export the AI electricity dividend eastward.”

________________________________________

8 │ Climate whiplash: heat versus cool chips

Record heat in 2025 forced grids on five continents to run flat-out while generation efficiency sagged. Cooling already accounts for over one-third of U.S. summer demand growth, tightening supply just as AI load accelerates.

________________________________________

9 │ Industry’s mounting anxiety

In Uptime Institute’s 2025 survey 36 % of operators named power availability their top concern, triple the 2023 share. Amazon’s Andy Jassy calls electricity “the single biggest constraint” on AWS’s AI expansion as Big Tech earmarks $350 billion for new server halls this year.

________________________________________

10 │ Ireland, the canary in the server hall

Data centres already consume 21 % of Ireland’s power and could near one-third within the decade, prompting regulators to require new campuses to provide on-site generation or storage. Other small grids are watching closely.

________________________________________

11 │ When AES meets AI

AES pioneered the world’s first hour-by-hour 24/7 carbon-free contract for Google’s Virginia cluster in 2021. Now it pilots AI-driven demand-response tools to “manufacture megawatts” from flexibility. Gluski insists that prefab solar, construction robotics and grid-visualisation AI can “collapse the renewables-load mismatch” — but only if transmission steel wins funding parity with GPUs.

________________________________________

12 │ Five levers before the lights dim

Leveraged required shift pay-off through first-ready, first-served interconnection queue triage by milestones rather than filing date. Removed speculative squatting off the grid. Managed shared cap-ex pools for upgrades. Spread network costs using wheeling fees. Eliminated billion-dollar shocks that can kill early-stage renewables. Established federal HVDC corridors and pre-approved rights-of-way, similar to Eisenhower’s highways. Halved litigation timelines across states. Implemented transparent SMR dashboards and monthly public scorecards. Exposed slippage before it metastasises. Utilised AI-optimised demand-response. Time-shifted non-critical compute, converting flexibility into virtual generation. First-served interconnection Queue triage by milestones, not filing date. Boots speculative squatting off the grid, shared cap-ex pools for upgrades, spreads network costs via wheeling fees, and removes billion-dollar shocks that kill early-stage renewables. Federal HVDC corridors Pre-approve rights-of-way like Eisenhower’s highways, halve litigation timelines across states. Transparent SMR dashboards, Monthly public score-cards, Exposes slippage before it metastasises, AI-optimised demand-response, Time-shift non-critical compute, Turns flexibility into virtual generation.

________________________________________

Epilogue │ : The Flicker Test

Picture the decisive night — 2040, perhaps sooner — when a billion users summon answers and the server halls of Ashburn, Phoenix, Dublin and Shenzhen roar awake. The model forms its first syllable… and the lights dip. Drives gasp, cooling towers stall, and the “intelligence” of an entire civilisation is revealed as hostage to the hum of a turbine and the tensile strength of a transmission span.

That is the question history will grade: Did we build fast enough to keep the future switched on?
Pass, and machine reasoning might illuminate every classroom and clinic on Earth. Fail, and our most brilliant algorithms will join the Library of Alexandria — silicon ashes in the dark — while the nations that never hesitated to pour concrete write the next chapter in their own script.

________________________________________

About the author

Germán Toro Ghio occupies a pivotal role at the intersection of energy transition and geopolitical strategy, bringing over thirty years of executive leadership and analytical expertise to some of the most intricate global challenges. As Chief Executive Officer of Germán & Co., he develops strategic narratives that influence policy discourse in governmental capitals and corporate boardrooms internationally.

His professional foundation is extensive, encompassing more than a decade with the United Nations Development Programme, followed by two critical years serving as Executive Secretary of the Forum of Culture Ministers for Latin America and the Caribbean. These experiences have cultivated his unique capacity to navigate cultural complexities within geopolitical contexts.

In the energy sector, Toro Ghio has employed communications as a strategic tool throughout two decades of leadership. His six-year tenure directing communications at Union Fenosa preceded a transformative fourteen-year period at AES Dominicana, where he advanced to the position of Vice President of Communications and contributed to establishing the company as a regional benchmark. His expertise regarding the nexus of energy and geopolitics has been recognised by EnergyCentral.com, which featured him in its esteemed Power Perspectives™ Interview Series.

Beyond his corporate roles, Toro Ghio has acted as a trusted advisor to the U.S. Department of State and the Organización de Estados Iberoamericanos, while also providing strategic guidance to several Latin American presidents on matters of energy policy and cultural diplomacy. His analytical acumen has proven consistently accurate, with his forecasts concerning energy market dynamics and geopolitical shifts demonstrating the strategic foresight that renders him a highly regarded authority within global energy forums.

Whether engaging with energy ministers or corporate leaders, Toro Ghio excels in distilling complexity into clarity, offering insights that not only inform but also shape the decisions influencing the future of energy.

_______________________________________

Join us to support independent geopolitical and energy analysis.

Here's how you can make a difference:

Engage with Us: Like, share, and repost our content on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central. It's a simple click that amplifies our reach and impact.
Be Part of the Conversation: Comment on our posts, share your thoughts, and let us know what topics matter most to you. Your input shapes our content and keeps our community vibrant.
Support Our Mission: If you can, consider contributing to help us continue our work. Every bit helps us keep the flame of independent analysis burning bright.

Ways to Contribute:

PayPal: gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com
IBAN: SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611
Swish: 076 423 90 79

Germán & Co 8/4/25 Germán & Co 8/4/25

Energy Without Water: The Hidden Power of Renewables in a Thirsty World…

Introduction

The irony in this transactional partnership is striking: while leaders pour billions into fossil fuels, they ignore the resource that truly defines survival — water. With droughts shutting down power grids and rivers vanishing, thermoelectric energy becomes a liability. On the other hand, wind and solar power, which require almost no water, emerge as the only scalable and drought-proof energy options.

Key Insights
The $750 billion U.S.–EU energy pact, signed in 2025 amid growing tensions in the Middle East, represents one of the most significant shifts in European strategy since the Cold War. Presented as a move toward "energy security," the agreement is essentially a geopolitical bargaining chip, aimed at ensuring an unpredictable Washington remains committed to Europe's defense as NATO weakens and new Arab coalitions emerge.
Behind this transactional partnership lies a deeper irony: as leaders spend billions on fossil fuels, they overlook the resource that truly determines survival — water. In a world where droughts cripple power grids and rivers dry up, thermoelectric energy becomes a burden. Wind and solar, which need almost no water, stand as the only scalable and drought-resistant energy solutions.
The report covers two decades of progress in renewable energy, the decline of EU climate leadership, and the rise of fossil fuel populism during Donald Trump's presidency. It includes exclusive insights into Arab military advancements, Europe's vulnerabilities, and U.S. strategic challenges. The key takeaway: renewables are not just an environmental choice—they are essential for survival. Fossil fuels may dominate for another decade, but the realities of physics, economics, and water resources will demand change. The future lies in energy that doesn't rely on water.

Not a Single Penny Has Found Its Way into Our Piggy Bank in 2025

This is our rallying cry to you:

Hoist our banner—like, repost, share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central: it costs nothing but echoes through halls of influence.

Lend your strength—if you can, please fuel the mission that keeps democracy honest and our energy future bright:

PayPal: gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com

IBAN: SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611

Swish: 076 423 90 79

Stripe: [Donation Link]

Every gift, no matter the size, fans the spark of independent thought into a roaring blaze. You’re not just donating—you’re empowering a truth-seeker in a world starved for clarity.

Remember, your donations are tax-deductible. Please check with your tax advisor for details.

Join us. Keep the flame burning. Light the way forward—in these darkening times, your support is the beacon guiding us all.

https://x.com/Germantoroghio/status/1952380153801400547

Germán & Co, Karlstad, Sweden | August 4, 2025

________________________________________

Executive Summary (Key Insights)
Introduction: The Wrong War
The Rise of Renewables (2000–2025)
The Geopolitical Chessboard
The Middle East Detonator
Shifting Middle Eastern Power Dynamics: An Intelligence Assessment
Europe – From Green Vanguard to Fossil Client
The Fossil Counteroffensive
The Water-Energy Nexus – The Crisis No One Mentions
Why Renewables Will Survive – And Define the Future
Trump’s Fossil Populism – Golf vs Wind
Three Futures – Scenarios for 2025–2035
Conclusion – Golf vs Wind
References
About the Author

________________________________________

Introduction: The Wrong War

They call it security. They call it sovereignty. They call it strategy. A $750 billion pact to flood Europe with American oil, liquefied gas, and nuclear fuel—a geopolitical masterpiece, its architects boast. Donald Trump grins, Ursula von der Leyen nods, and the headlines scream: Europe Breaks Free from Dependency.

Free from what? Russian pipelines, maybe. Fear of blackouts, perhaps. But not from the droughts that split riverbeds from Texas to Tuscany. Not from dry reservoirs, leaving crops and cities desperate. Not from the harsh, undeniable reality of a world running out of freshwater.

Because here is the irony no one dares to spell out: while the world burns trillions trying to monopolize molecules, the one resource that no energy summit seems to mention—the one crisis no leader can frack or drill away—is water. And every thermoelectric plant, every LNG terminal, every nuclear reactor that this deal enshrines will guzzle billions of liters of it.

Meanwhile, in the margins of these fossil feasts, stand the technologies that sip almost nothing: solar panels that drink only sunlight, wind turbines that thirst for air alone. The only form of industrial energy that can scale without bleeding rivers dry. The only energy future that makes sense in a century where water scarcity will redraw borders and topple nations.

Yet in 2025, after two decades in which renewables slashed costs by 90%, after wind farms grew into giants and solar cells learned to harvest twilight, we find ourselves here: watching Europe mortgage its climate credibility for a shipload of LNG, watching politicians sell yesterday’s fuels as tomorrow’s security.

This is not a technical debate. It is a civilizational gamble. And in this gamble, the stakes are not barrels or BTUs—they are rivers, aquifers, and the survival of entire societies.

________________________________________

The Rise of Renewables (2000–2025)

At the dawn of the millennium, renewable energy was a whisper against the roar of coal and oil. In 2000, solar panels were an ornament for wealthy rooftops, wind farms a curiosity on the North Sea horizon. Renewables supplied barely 5% of global electricity, mostly from hydropower dams.

________________________________________

From Subsidy to Supremacy

The transformation began quietly. Germany’s Energiewende and China’s industrial machine drove solar panel costs down 90%. From $4/watt in 2008 to $0.25/watt by 2022. Wind turbines grew taller than skyscrapers, their blades longer than football fields. Today, a single offshore turbine powers 16,000 homes.

________________________________________

Technological Revolutions

Solar PV: Efficiency jumped from 12% to 25%, lab tech hits 40%.
Wind: 1 MW turbines in 2000 → 15 MW offshore giants today.
Storage: Lithium-ion costs fell 89% since 2010; green hydrogen scaling.
Smart Grids: AI optimizes supply/demand across continents.

________________________________________

Water Advantage

Coal, gas, and nuclear guzzle water for cooling—billions of gallons. Solar and wind? Virtually zero. In a century where water wars loom, that is the killer feature.

________________________________________

The Geopolitical Chessboard

Washington weaponized LNG as statecraft. Brussels saw “freedom gas” as salvation. But security illusions crumble fast when the world burns.

The $750B U.S.–EU pact is not energy diversification—it’s dependency swap.
OPEC counters with volume warfare.
Russia pivots to Asia, cementing energy bipolarity.
China silently bankrolls alternative trade corridors.

________________________________________

The Middle East Detonator – Netanyahu’s Gamble and Europe’s Panic

Netanyahu dragged Trump into a war America didn’t want. Both leaders miscalculated. The response was a seven-headed monster: an Arab coalition with tech no one expected—hypersonics, drone swarms, AI warfare.

U.S. destroyers sunk by coordinated drone attacks.
NATO’s southern flank exposed.
Israel’s Iron Dome overwhelmed.

Europe panicked. The energy pact became a geopolitical ransom to keep Trump’s military umbrella intact.

________________________________________

Shifting Middle Eastern Power Dynamics – An Intelligence Assessment

The Middle East is experiencing its most significant geopolitical transformation since the Cold War's end, driven by Arab military modernization, exposed Western vulnerabilities, and European strategic fragmentation. Intelligence assessments from 2024-2025 reveal a fundamental reshaping of regional power dynamics that challenges decades of Western strategic assumptions.

________________________________________

The Monster With Seven Heads

Arab coalition building has evolved from aspirational rhetoric into tangible military cooperation, technological advancement, and strategic coordination.

Saudi Arabia’s $142 billion defense agreement with the U.S. in May 2025 – the largest in U.S. history – operates alongside expanding Chinese partnerships.
Procurement diversification: Saudi Arabia manufactures 300 Chinese Wing Loong II drones domestically while upgrading its F-15SA fleet. Algeria imports Su-35 fighters from Russia; 48% of arms now sourced from Moscow.
Integrated advanced systems: THAAD and Patriot systems coexist with Chinese ballistic missile tech and AI-driven air defense.
Technology transfer: Saudi Vision 2030 targets 50% domestic military spending by 2030; UAE EDGE Group secures $2.45 billion in regional defense contracts.

________________________________________

The Collapse of Western Assumptions

Pentagon reports admit strategic assumption failure:

Carrier group vulnerability: U.S. Navy spent billions defending against cheap drones in Red Sea attacks.
Stockpile depletion threatens readiness for China scenarios.
Iron Dome saturation failure during October 7, 2023 Hamas attack.
Hybrid warfare mastery by Iran – drones + cyber + proxies overwhelm Western doctrine.

________________________________________

Europe – From Green Vanguard to Fossil Client

For two decades, the EU posed as the global climate champion. It wrote Paris into law, declared a Green Deal, pledged €1 trillion for decarbonization. After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Brussels launched REPowerEU to end fossil addiction.

Then reality shattered the illusion:

Offshore wind collapsed under inflation and supply chain shocks.
Solar tariffs strangled installation rates.
Populist anger over energy prices boiled across Europe.

By 2025, Europe did the unthinkable: It signed the biggest fossil deal in its history, pledging hundreds of billions for U.S. hydrocarbons. The continent that sold virtue as policy became a fossil client in fear.

________________________________________

The Fossil Counteroffensive

Big Oil is back from the dead:

U.S. LNG exports hit record highs; Cheniere becomes an empire.
OPEC+ floods the market to blunt U.S. leverage.
Russia redirects crude to Asia at discounts, cementing new anti-West bloc.

________________________________________

Losers?

European households pay triple U.S. electricity prices.
Developing nations lose LNG cargoes to rich buyers.
The climate clock ticks toward midnight,

________________________________________

The Water-Energy Nexus – The Crisis No One Mentions

While leaders obsess over molecules, the true strategic element of survival is missing: water.

Coal, gas, and nuclear drink rivers dry — billions of liters for cooling.
Droughts already forced reactor shutdowns in France (2022).
By 2030, 40% of humanity will live under severe water stress (UN).

Renewables are the only scalable energy that needs zero operational water. This is the silent reason why green power is not just eco-friendly—it is existentially necessary.

1) Comparative Water Use by Energy Source:

Coal: ~500 gallons/MWh
Gas: ~200 gallons/MWh
Nuclear: ~600 gallons/MWh
Hydro: thousands
Wind/Solar: ~0

________________________________________

Why Renewables Will Survive – And Define the Future

Fossil fuels can roar for a decade, maybe two. But physics and economics have already chosen the winner:

Solar PV costs as low as $24/MWh in India; wind in Brazil under $30/MWh.
Battery prices down 89% since 2010; next-gen storage on horizon.
ESG finance channels trillions into renewables.
In a thirsty world, coal, gas, and nuclear collapse first.

This is not ideology. It is inevitable.

________________________________________

Trump’s Fossil Populism – Golf vs. Wind

Why does Trump hate wind?

Wind farms became villains after turbines threatened his Scottish golf resort.
Fossil fuels became MAGA totems: jobs, masculinity, “real America.”
Green tech became “globalist witchcraft.”

Every LNG terminal Trump christens is an altar to his base. Every solar project he kills is a cultural victory.

________________________________________

Three Futures – Scenarios for 2025–2035

Scenario 1: Fossil Lock-In (The Mirage Wins)

Europe entrenches in LNG and nuclear.
Global emissions soar; 1.5°C target dies.
Water stress triggers grid failures in India, Texas, Spain.

Scenario 2: Green Recovery (Physics Prevails)

Renewables dominate 70% of generation by 2040.
Hydrogen + storage end intermittency fears.
Water crises stabilize.

Scenario 3: Hybrid Transition (Most Likely)

Fossils cling to 40%; renewables 55%.
Carbon cuts insufficient; climate shocks multiply.

________________________________________

Conclusion – Golf vs Wind

A golf course waters its vanity while rivers dry. The wind farm hums along without drinking a drop.

One is leisure. The other is life.

When future historians ask why Europe mortgaged its soul for LNG, why did Trump fight turbines more fiercely than a Category 5 hurricane? What will we say? That we mistook a golf course for progress and viewed a wind farm as an eyesore?

The real choice was never about pipelines or panels. It was about water versus thirst, life versus collapse. And the truth, written in every drought and blackout, is merciless: Energy without water is the only energy with a future.

________________________________________

References

IEA, World Energy Outlook 2024
UN Water, World Water Development Report 2023
Financial Times: Europe bets on U.S. LNG in $750bn Pact (2025)
Reuters, Global Energy Investments, 2025
CSIS, Geopolitics of LNG and Energy Security
SIPRI & IISS Military Assessments (2024–2025)
EU Commission’s REPowerEU Progress Report

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

About the Author

Join Us in Shaping the Future: Support Independent Geopolitical and Energy Analysis

Here's how you can make a difference:

Engage with Us: Like, share, and repost our content on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central. It's a simple click that amplifies our reach and impact.
Be Part of the Conversation: Comment on our posts, share your thoughts, and let us know what topics matter most to you. Your input shapes our content and keeps our community vibrant.
Support Our Mission: If you can, consider contributing to help us continue our work. Every bit helps us keep the flame of independent analysis burning bright.

Ways to Contribute:

PayPal: gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com
IBAN: SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611
Swish: 076 423 90 79

_______________________________________

**You can't possibly deny me...**

**Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…**

Gratitude is our heartbeat.

Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.

Help us stay loud:

One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.

One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).

Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.

Thank you for keeping the flame alive.

https://x.com/Germantoroghio/status/1915515888515899541

Germán & Co 8/4/25 Germán & Co 8/4/25

The Clumsy Political Apprentices Who May Unconsciously Trigger Nuclear War…

Introduction

In an era where nuclear submarines deploy within days of social media ultimatums, the gap between institutional sophistication and leadership competence has become a civilizational threat.

Russia minimizes concerns about Trump's directive to relocate two nuclear submarines, advising restraint in nuclear-related discussions. Trump announced on Friday that he had instructed the deployment of submarines to "the appropriate regions." Thomson Reuters · Published: Aug 04, 2025, 8:03 AM EDT | Updated: 14 minutes ago.

Not a Single Penny Has Found Its Way into Our Piggy Bank in 2025

This is our rallying cry to you:

Hoist our banner—like, repost, share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central: it costs nothing but echoes through halls of influence.

Lend your strength—if you can, please fuel the mission that keeps democracy honest and our energy future bright:

PayPal: gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com

IBAN: SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611

Swish: 076 423 90 79

Stripe: [Donation Link]

Every gift, no matter the size, fans the spark of independent thought into a roaring blaze. You’re not just donating—you’re empowering a truth-seeker in a world starved for clarity.

Remember, your donations are tax-deductible. Please check with your tax advisor for details.

Join us. Keep the flame burning. Light the way forward—in these darkening times, your support is the beacon guiding us all.

https://x.com/Germantoroghio/status/1952325635428495821

Editorial

Germán & Co, Karlstad, Sweden | August 4, 2025

________________________________________

#NuclearWar - The ultimate threat and consequence
#EnergyWarfare - The weaponization mechanism being analyzed
#PoliticalApprenticeship - The core concept of inexperienced leaders making dangerous decisions

________________________________________

Urgent/Direct: As nuclear submarines position themselves in response to energy ultimatums and "dead hand" threats echo across social media, we are witnessing the real-time collapse of institutional safeguards that once prevented civilizational catastrophe. What began as tactical energy disputes had escalated to nuclear positioning within days, validating the most alarming predictions about leadership asymmetries in an age of weapons of mass destruction.
Philosophical/Analytical: Twenty-four centuries after Socrates warned that false words "infect the soul with evil," we face the ultimate manifestation of his prophecy: political leaders who mistake transactional thinking for strategic wisdom while wielding nuclear arsenals. The corruption of truth in political calculations has spread like a contagion through institutions until rational governance—and human survival—hang in the balance.
Narrative/Descriptive: When President Trump deployed nuclear submarines following Dmitry Medvedev's reference to Russia's automated nuclear retaliation system, the theoretical became terrifyingly real. Energy warfare has achieved its ultimate goal: transforming economic disputes into existential threats within a matter of days, as "clumsy political apprentices" navigate civilizational complexity with ultimatums and transactions while facing adversaries who treat every interaction as multi-dimensional warfare.

________________________________________

"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." — Socrates

Like the ancient Greek philosopher who warned about the corrupting power of deception, Germán Toro Ghio's prescient analyses reveal how institutional dishonesty and strategic blindness create cascading paths to civilizational collapse. We are witnessing the ultimate manifestation of what Socrates understood: when truth becomes expendable in political calculations, the very foundations of rational governance crumble.

________________________________________

The Regulatory Shift: Normalizing Corruption as Competitive Strategy

A pivotal development occurred when the Trump administration paused enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) for 180 days while developing new enforcement guidelines. This policy shift represents a significant departure from decades of anti-corruption enforcement, signaling a prioritization of economic competitiveness over traditional compliance standards.

This enforcement pause reduces legal constraints on corporate behavior abroad, potentially normalizing practices that blur the boundaries between legitimate business development and questionable influence-buying. The change transforms what was once considered a global gold standard for corporate ethics into a more flexible policy instrument, enabling multinational corporations—particularly in extractive industries—to pursue aggressive international expansion with reduced regulatory oversight.

The implications extend beyond corporate compliance. This policy adjustment sends a clear geopolitical signal: economic advantage will increasingly take precedence over ethical considerations in foreign business dealings. Such an environment particularly benefits fossil fuel diplomacy in developing regions, while potentially undermining transparency initiatives in global energy markets.

________________________________________

From Quick Fixes to Nuclear Consequences: The Control Illusion

As former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warns, we face a world "more dangerous" than the Cold War, where "the potential for conflict comes against the backdrop of an arms race in revolutionary technologies" and "direct military conflict between great powers" looms larger than ever.

Germán Toro Ghio's comprehensive analysis reveals how this escalation from short-term fixes to nuclear-level consequences manifests through what he calls "control illusions"—the dangerous belief that complex geopolitical systems can be managed through simple tactical moves. His examination of energy as a geopolitical weapon, the Trump-Putin financial nexus, and the cyclical nature of authoritarian propaganda shows how tactical decisions compound into existential risks.

The leadership asymmetries identified by European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde take on terrifying implications in this context. Her stark contrast between Putin's meticulous preparation ("unbelievably thorough, detailed, knowledgeable") and Trump's opposite approach becomes catastrophic when combined with what Toro Ghio describes as the "war of gas"—where energy policy becomes militarized and institutional safeguards are weakened.

________________________________________

The Nord Stream Deception: Energy as Psychological Warfare

The August 2, 2022, Putin-Schröder meeting in Moscow—exactly 57 days before the Nord Stream pipeline sabotage—provides a masterclass in sophisticated strategic deception. Putin's offer to activate Nord Stream 2 "if necessary," followed by the pipeline's destruction, represents either extraordinary tactical flexibility or calculated psychological warfare at the highest level.

This episode perfectly illustrates Lagarde's observation about Putin knowing everything "inside out" while operating on multiple layers simultaneously. Putin used former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder—a perfect messenger with deep Russian energy ties—to communicate potential energy relief to a desperate Europe, only to eliminate that option entirely weeks later.

The meeting reveals energy policy as pure psychological warfare. Putin's technical details about Nord Stream 2's "half capacity" (27.5 billion cubic meters) and timeline constraints suggest either genuine contingency planning or sophisticated intelligence gathering about European desperation levels. The subsequent pipeline destruction transformed this "offer" into a weapon of economic warfare—Europe's energy hopes literally blown up beneath the Baltic Sea.

________________________________________

The Fischer-Spassky Paradigm: Decades of Strategic Preparation

Toro Ghio's analysis of the Putin-Schröder relationship through the lens of the 1972 Fischer-Spassky chess match reveals the decades-long strategic planning behind our current crisis. Like the legendary "Match of the Century" in Reykjavík, the Nord Stream project represented a carefully orchestrated geopolitical game where one player understood the actual stakes. At the same time, others believed they were engaged in simple commerce.

Putin, the former KGB agent who worked as a spy in Dresden from 1984 to 1990, developed a long-term strategy that Western leaders consistently misread as business opportunities. When Schröder—facing electoral difficulties in 2005—embraced Putin's energy projects, he was unknowingly executing what Toro Ghio calls Putin's "extraordinary checkmate to the West."

The Nord Stream pipeline, buried 60-80 meters deep in Baltic international waters where "no one could have any intrusion," represented the ultimate control illusion for European leaders. They believed they were securing energy independence while actually creating the infrastructure for their own strategic vulnerability.

________________________________________

The Sykes-Picot Foundation: Engineering Permanent Instability

Toro Ghio's historical analysis reveals how the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement created the foundational vulnerability that enables contemporary energy warfare. By drawing borders "without due consideration for the welfare of inhabitants" and prioritizing "Britain and France's economic interests, encompassing oil, natural gas, and the management of the Suez Canal," the agreement engineered permanent instability that sophisticated adversaries can now weaponize.

The agreement's legacy—creating "a profound sense of betrayal felt by Palestinians and Israelis alike"—provides the historical grievance structure that enables tactical attacks to trigger strategic consequences. Hamas's October 7 operation exploited this century-old wound, knowing that Israel's predictable response would create the regional chaos necessary to disrupt global energy flows through the Suez Canal, which carries "12% of total global seaborne oil trade."

This represents the same long-term strategic thinking observed in Putin's Dresden-to-Nord Stream trajectory: identifying historical vulnerabilities, systematically building infrastructure to exploit them, then executing operations that trigger cascading consequences far beyond their immediate scope.

________________________________________

The Witkoff Humiliation: Transactional Thinking Meets Strategic Warfare

The recent Witkoff diplomatic episode provides a perfect illustration of how leadership asymmetries manifest in real-world consequences. Putin's calculated humiliation of Trump's envoy—gifting a Trump portrait instead of a Kandinsky, offering Moscow hotel licenses as public blackmail—represents sophisticated psychological warfare designed as "weapons of disorientation."

The fundamental error was sending "a real estate shark" to negotiate with "a 19th-century strategist with 21st-century weapons." This exemplifies the dangerous "control illusions"—The notion that complex geopolitical systems can be handled with straightforward transactional methods. The outcome: "America is playing Monopoly while Russia plays knife chess."

Most alarmingly, Putin's kompromat operations represent "the 21st-century nuke"—using blackmail not just for criminal purposes but to "coerce entire nations" through compromised officials. This creates the exact kind of institutional vulnerability that makes FCPA enforcement pauses and other regulatory rollbacks so dangerous.

________________________________________

Tarkovsky's Prophecy: The Cyclical Return to Nuclear Apocalypse

The haunting prescience of Andrei Tarkovsky's 1986 film "Sacrifice"—depicting a nuclear catastrophe just months before Chernobyl—now finds its most terrifying validation in the artillery bombardment of Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant. As the International Atomic Energy Agency warns, "We are playing with fire, and something very, very catastrophic could happen."

Tarkovsky's parable of the monk watering a dead tree for three years until it bloomed offers a chilling metaphor for Putin's decades-long strategy: systematic, ritualistic preparation that Western leaders dismissed as mere authoritarianism while he was constructing the infrastructure for civilizational collapse.

When military operations target nuclear facilities as tactical objectives, we witness the complete breakdown of institutional safeguards and strategic rationality that once prevented such apocalyptic scenarios. Tarkovsky's artistic vision anticipated not just nuclear accidents, but the deliberate militarization of nuclear infrastructure itself.

________________________________________

Breaking Point: Nuclear Submarines and the "Dead Hand" Threat

The ultimate validation of this analysis arrived in real-time: President Trump deployed nuclear submarines in response to former Russian President Medvedev's "dead hand" threats, demonstrating the complete trajectory from tactical nuclear energy ultimatums to nuclear brinksmanship.

Trump's series of escalating deadlines—"10 or 12 days," then 50 days, now August 8th—combined with threats of "severe tariffs targeting Russia's oil and other exports" represent exactly the kind of ill-prepared tactical thinking that Lagarde identified as "exactly the opposite" of Putin's sophisticated approach. Each ultimatum triggered more dangerous responses, culminating in Medvedev's reference to Russia's automated nuclear retaliation system.

This nuclear escalation validates every element of the analysis: energy warfare connects directly to nuclear positioning, institutional safeguards have completely broken down, and leadership asymmetries create cascading consequences that transform economic disputes into existential threats.

________________________________________

The Ultimate Question: Socratic Wisdom in Nuclear Times

The nuclear submarine deployment following Trump's energy ultimatums provides the definitive answer to our fundamental question. We are witnessing the real-time manifestation of coordinated global energy warfare designed to trigger civilizational collapse, with tactical decisions now directly escalating to nuclear positioning within days.

Socrates understood that when truth becomes expendable in political calculations, the corruption spreads like a contagion through institutions until rational governance becomes impossible. Today's "clumsy political apprentices" embody this warning—leaders who believe they can manage complex civilizational systems through simple transactional fixes while facing adversaries who treat every interaction as multi-dimensional warfare.

The pattern is complete and accelerating: energy ultimatums trigger nuclear threats, which trigger submarine deployment, validating the theoretical framework in real-time. The energy-nuclear connection is now an operational reality, with markets falling sharply following nuclear positioning statements.

This systematic approach confirms the coordinated architecture: exploit institutional vulnerabilities, weaponize energy infrastructure, manipulate predictable responses, and escalate to nuclear systems. Whether through pipeline destruction, shipping route disruption, or nuclear positioning, the goal remains constant—transform tactical energy disputes into existential threats that destabilize democratic institutions.

________________________________________

Conclusion: The Choice Between Wisdom and Apocalypse

Western societies cannot develop the strategic sophistication needed to counter coordinated global energy warfare while maintaining democratic values when institutional safeguards have been systematically weakened. Tarkovsky's prophetic cycle is accelerating, with energy warfare achieving its ultimate goal: forcing democratic leaders into nuclear brinksmanship that either destroys the institutional frameworks enabling civilization or forces abandonment of the values that make civilization worth preserving.

We are no longer analyzing theoretical trajectories from tactical decisions to nuclear consequences. We are witnessing their real-time manifestation as energy ultimatums trigger nuclear submarine deployment. The choice between matching adversarial sophistication while preserving democratic principles, or accepting civilizational collapse, is no longer theoretical—it is playing out in nuclear waters.

As Socrates warned 2,400 years ago, false words infect the soul with evil. Today's clumsy political apprentices, armed with nuclear weapons and convinced they can manage civilizational complexity through ultimatums and transactions, may unconsciously fulfill the philosopher's darkest prophecy: that the corruption of truth ultimately corrupts the very possibility of rational human survival.

The question is no longer whether democratic institutions can match Putin's strategic sophistication. The question is whether they can do so before the apprentices' unconscious incompetence triggers the nuclear catastrophe that ends the possibility of learning from their mistakes.

________________________________________

References

Primary Sources and Official Documents

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). (2024). "Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant: Safety and Security Updates." IAEA Reports.

Medvedev, D. (2025, August 1). [Statements on Russia's automatic nuclear capabilities]. Telegram/Social Media Posts.

Trump, D. (2025, August 1). "Nuclear Submarine Deployment Announcement." Truth Social Post.

Academic Analysis and Think Tanks

Atlantic Council. (2022, September 6). "Europe can win Putin's gas war but must learn Nord Stream lessons." UkraineAlert. Retrieved from https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/europe-can-win-putins-gas-war-but-must-learn-nord-stream-lessons/

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. (2022, September). "Shock and Awe: Who Attacked the Nord Stream Pipelines?" Carnegie Politika. Retrieved from https://carnegieendowment.org/russia-eurasia/politika/2022/09/shock-and-awe-who-attacked-the-nord-stream-pipelines

Clean Energy Wire. (2018, August 16). "Nord Stream 2 – Symbol of failed German bet on Russian gas." Retrieved from https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/gas-pipeline-nord-stream-2-links-germany-russia-splits-europe

Foreign Policy. (2024, April 29). "Nord Stream Heralded Globalization's Rise and Fall." Retrieved from https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/04/29/globalization-nordstream-russia-ukraine-germany-putin-sabotage/

Foreign Policy. (2024, September 25). "Don't Let Germany Go Back to Its Old Russian Tricks." Retrieved from https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/09/25/germany-russia-gas-nordstream-pipeline-sanctions-us-congress-putin-scholz-schroeder-gazprom/

_______________________________________

International Media Sources

ABC News. (2025, August 1). "Trump moves nuclear submarines in response to Russia's 'highly provocative' statement." Retrieved from https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-moves-nuclear-submarines-response-russias-highly-provocative/story?id=124284200

Al Jazeera. (2023, March 15). "Putin calls Ukraine role in Nord Stream blasts 'sheer nonsense'." Russia-Ukraine war News. Retrieved from https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/15/putin-calls-ukraine-role-in-nord-stream-blasts-sheer-nonsense

CNN Business. (2022, January 25). "How Putin's $11 billion pipeline split NATO and the EU at a time of crisis." Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/25/business/russia-putin-nord-stream-2-gas-pipeline-intl-cmd/index.html

CNN Politics. (2025, August 1). "Trump says he's ordered nuclear submarines repositioned after Russian official's 'highly provocative' remarks." Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/01/politics/nuclear-submaries-russia-trump-medvedev

CNN. (2025, August 2). "Trump is moving nuclear submarines following remarks by an ex-Russian president. Here are the subs in the American fleet." Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/02/us/us-navy-submarine-explainer-intl-hnk-ml

CNBC. (2025, August 1). "Trump says he moved two nuclear submarines after Russia's Medvedev warns U.S." Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/01/trump-russia-nuclear-submarines.html

Defense News. (2021, March 31). "Putin's pipeline of aggression: How the Nord Stream 2 threatens the West." Retrieved from https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2021/03/31/putins-pipeline-of-aggression-how-the-nord-stream-2-threatens-the-west/

Euronews. (2025, August 1). "Trump orders two 'nuclear submarines' moved near Russia after Medvedev warning." Retrieved from https://www.euronews.com/2025/08/01/trump-orders-two-nuclear-submarines-moved-near-russia-after-medvedev-warning

FOX 28 Spokane. (2025, August 4). "Trump confirms US envoy Witkoff to travel to Russia 'next week'." Retrieved from https://www.fox28spokane.com/trump-confirms-us-envoy-witkoff-to-travel-to-russia-next-week/

NBC News. (2025, August 1). "Trump says he's deploying two nuclear subs after 'highly provocative statements' from Russia's Dmitry Medvedev." Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-deploying-two-nuclear-subs-provocative-statements-russia-rcna222520

The Washington Post. (2022, September 27). "Analysis | Is Putin Fully Weaponizing the Nord Stream Pipelines?" Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/is-putin-fully-weaponizing-the-nord-stream-pipelines/2022/09/27/9be3c836-3e68-11ed-8c6e-9386bd7cd826_story.html

The Washington Post. (2022, September 29). "Analysis | Russian TV is very excited about Tакер Карлсон's Nord Stream theory." Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/29/russia-nord-stream-tucker-carlson-fox-news/

The Washington Post. (2025, August 1). "Trump moves nuclear submarines after online clash over Russian strike." Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/08/01/ukraine-russia-kyiv-death-toll/

The Washington Post. (2025, August 1). "Trump fires official over jobs report; moves submarines as warning to Russia." Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/08/01/trump-presidency-news/

________________________________________

Specific Sources Mentioned

Lagarde, C. (2024). Interview on Putin-Trump comparative leadership. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXACT38RaYs

Los Angeles Times. (2024). Article with Condoleezza Rice statements on current dangers vs. Cold War. [Specific reference required]

MSN. (2025, August 2). "Witkoff to Russia: Nuclear submarines in position." Retrieved from https://www.msn.com/sv-se/nyheter/utrikes/witkoff-till-ryssland-atomub%C3%A5tar-p%C3%A5-plats/ar-AA1JQm5A

Pravda EN. (2025, August 4). "To Moscow in peace and with 'submarines': Trump's special Envoy flies to talks while nuclear submarines 'arrived' on the ground." Retrieved from https://news-pravda.com/russia/2025/08/04/1565451.html

Toro Ghio, G. Comprehensive analysis on energy warfare and Putin's strategy. germantoroghio.com. [Multiple articles and analyses available on the website]

________________________________________

Historical and Philosophical Sources

Plato. Apology of Socrates. (c. 399 BC). Quote: "False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil."

Tarkovsky, A. (Director). (1986). The Sacrifice [Film]. Swedish Film Institute.

________________________________________

Notes on Sources

Germán Toro Ghio Analysis: References to Toro Ghio's comprehensive analyses are based on work available at germantoroghio.com, where multiple articles on energy warfare, Putin's geopolitical strategies, and Trump-Putin nexus analysis can be found.
Christine Lagarde Statements: Quotes about leadership differences between Putin and Trump come from public interviews and statements by the European Central Bank President.
IAEA Documentation: Warnings about "playing with fire" at nuclear facilities come from official reports by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Suez Canal Data: Statistics about 12% of global oil trade passing through the Suez Canal come from official international maritime trade sources.
Nord Stream Information: Technical details about pipeline depth (60-80 meters) and capacities (27.5 billion cubic meters) come from official project technical documentation.

Last updated: August 4, 2025

________________________________________

Gratitude is our heartbeat.

Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.

Help us stay loud:

One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.

One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).

Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.

Thank you for keeping the flame alive.

https://x.com/Germantoroghio/status/1915515888515899541

Germán & Co 7/30/25 Germán & Co 7/30/25

Europe’s $750 Billion Energy Pledge: A Logistical Madness?

From one pipe to the madness…

“Von der Leyen's Gamble 750 Billions Deal…
An Analysis of Permanent Crisis, Failed Diplomacy, and the Art of Strategic Self-Destruction

A Heartfelt Plea: Support Independent Geopolitical and Energy Analysis

In a world where the tides of information are as unpredictable as they are relentless, we stand as a beacon of insight and truth. Our heartbeat is fueled by gratitude, and our mission is driven by the unwavering commitment to shed light on the complex interplay of geopolitics and energy that shapes our global landscape.

But we cannot do this alone. Inflation rises, platforms shift, and every piece of content we create fights for survival in an increasingly crowded and noisy world. We are holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images, but the battle to keep independent analysis alive is one that requires your support.

Help us stay loud. Help us keep the flame of independent analysis burning bright.

Your engagement is a lifeline. With just one click, you can amplify our voice:

Like, repost, or share our content on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central. It's free, it's private, and it's game-changing.

If you can, we humbly ask for more. Consider making a gift to support our work:

PayPal: gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com
IBAN: SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611
Swish: 076 423 90 79
Stripe: [Donation Link]

Every gesture, no matter how small, powers the words you read and the insights you gain. We are deeply grateful for your support, and we urge you, if you are able, to contribute. Your support is not just a donation; it is a lifeline that keeps the flame of independent analysis alive.

Thank you for standing with us. Together, we can continue to illuminate the path forward in these turbulent times.

https://x.com/Germantoroghio/status/1950544972886811049

Av Germán Toro Ghio
Karlstad, Sweden | July 30, 2025

________________________________________

#EnergyGeopolitics #ESGInvestmentFailure #ChineseEnergyDominance #ClimateCapitalism

________________________________________

When President Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen unveiled a new trade framework on July 27, 2025, it included a jaw‑dropping commitment: Europe would purchase $750 billion of U.S. energy—primarily liquefied natural gas (LNG) and oil—over the next three years, or roughly $250 billion annually. Yet within days, energy analysts and port operators were scratching their heads. How can Europe absorb such volumes through its handful of regasification terminals and nascent LNG ports? The pledge may serve geopolitical goals—weakening Moscow’s grip on European gas supplies—but logistically, it verges on fantasy. (Axios)

________________________________________

1. The Geopolitical Backdrop: From Russian Pipes to American Ships

Before 2022, roughly 40 percent of the EU’s gas came directly via Russian pipelines, chiefly Nord Stream, Yamal–Europe, and the Ukraine transit routes. After Russia’s full‑scale invasion of Ukraine, Brussels and member states rushed to diversify. By early 2023, European imports of U.S. LNG had surged, making the United States Europe’s top non-Russian supplier. Yet even with this uptick, EU–U.S. LNG trade in 2024 stood at only $80 billion, barely a third of the pledged annual target. (wsj.com)(Axios)

Despite a flurry of new regasification capacity, Europe still depends heavily on pipeline gas from Norway (≈ 35 bcm/year), Algeria (≈ 30 bcm/year), and Azerbaijan (via TANAP/TAP, ≈ 10 bcm/year). In contrast, total EU regasification capacity in mid‑2025 was about 250 bcm/year—enough to import ≈ $60–70 billion of U.S. LNG at current prices [$10–12/MMBtu]—far short of the $250 billion mark. (Energy Central)

________________________________________

2. “Few Ports, Big Promises”: Europe’s Existing LNG Terminals

________________________________________

2.1 Wilhelmshaven and Germany’s Baltic Push

Wilhelmshaven: Germany’s first onshore LNG terminal came online in November 2022. Its two storage tanks can hold 380,000 m³ and regasify up to 8 bcm/year. However, in Q1 2025 it ran at just 49 percent utilization due to regulatory slowdowns in pipeline interconnectors. (Reuters)
Brunsbüttel: Operational since late 2023, this FSRU‑based terminal adds another 10 bcm/year but has seen 83 percent utilization—far higher, thanks to flexible vessel charters that bypass onshore approvals. (Reuters)
Mukran: The Baltic port’s onshore facility languished at 5 percent capacity in Q1 2025, feeding only 1.3 bcm into the grid—1.5 percent of Germany’s annual demand. Local opposition and “take‑or‑pay” contracts have kept it afloat, but actual throughput remains negligible. (Reuters)

________________________________________

2.2 Finland’s Inkoo FSRU

Inkoo (Hanko): Finland’s floating storage and regasification unit began operations in January 2023, offering 5 bcm/year capacity. It reserves space through competitive auctions, but market demand has been muted, with winter bookings often retracted. (Gasgrid)(Global Energy Monitor)

________________________________________
2.3 Poland’s Świnoujście Expansion

Świnoujście: Since 2015 it has provided 5 bcm/year; after its June 2023 expansion (third 180,000 m³ tank), capacity rose to 7.5 bcm/year (≈ €2 billion investment) to satisfy about 50 percent of Poland’s gas needs. Yet connectivity constraints to Germany and the Czech Republic have capped throughput. (giignl.org)

________________________________________

2.4 Greece’s Alexandroupolis FSRU

Alexandroupolis: Offshore since October 2024, this 5.5 bcm/year FSRU links via a 28 km undersea pipeline to Komotini, serving Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, Hungary, and Ukraine. Despite its strategic value, annual utilization hovers around 4 bcm due to competition from cheaper Greek pipeline imports. (Reuters)

________________________________________

3. REPowerEU and the Pipeline to Nowhere

In May 2022, the European Commission launched REPowerEU, a €300 billion plan to reduce Russian fuel use by two-thirds by 2027. The LNG pillar includes:

24 new onshore and FSRU projects (2022–2027), adding ≈ 150 bcm/year of potential capacity.
Expansion of existing terminals in Spain, Belgium (Zeebrugge), the Netherlands (Rotterdam), and France (Fos‑Cavaou).
Interconnector upgrades (e.g., Baltic Pipe Poland‑Denmark; 10 bcm/year by late 2022).

CEER’s February 2024 report highlights that only 65 percent of the planned capacity is expected to be realized by 2027 due to permitting delays, contractor shortages, and opposition in coastal areas. Meanwhile, pipelines like Nord Stream 2 remain stalled for political reasons, and projects such as Poseidon in the Eastern Mediterranean face environmental and legal hurdles. Europe’s energy landscape is marked by incomplete terminals and underutilized interconnectors, making it an unreliable foundation for a $250 billion annual import plan

.________________________________________

4. The Economic Chasm: CAPEX, OPEX, and the Real Cost of LNG

4.1 Liquefaction and Shipping

Liquefaction plants consume 10–15 percent of the gas they process, at costs of $3–4/MMBtu.
Carrier charters average $50,000–100,000/day; at 1 million m³ per voyage, this adds $2–3/MMBtu.
Boil‑off losses and reliquefaction onboard can add another $0.50–1/MMBtu.

Thus, delivered ex‑ship cost to Europe averages $15–18/MMBtu, up from $8–10 for major pipelines from Norway. This differential alone, multiplied by hundreds of bcm, equates to tens of billions of extra dollars annually—yet the $750 billion pledge contains no mechanism for cost caps or subsidies. (Axios)

________________________________________

4.2 Regasification Fees and Domestic Transport

Regas tariffs range from €0.7–1.5/MMBtu depending on the terminal and country.
Pipeline network levies add €0.3–0.5/MMBtu to move gas to consumption centres.

Europe’s average landed cost thus approaches $20–22/MMBtu, outpricing pipeline supplies and undermining competitiveness for industry, power generation, and heating—especially as renewables drive wholesale prices lower. (wsj.com)

________________________________________

5. A Fragmented Market: Who Will Buy All This Gas?

Europe’s energy markets are highly decentralized. National regulators set tariffs, but private utilities and traders negotiate the bulk of LNG contracts. There is no single EU “buyer of last resort.” The $750 billion commitment rests on voluntary offtakes by dozens of companies—unlike China’s state-led Phase 1 deals in 2019, which achieved more secure purchase obligations. (reddit.com)

Attempts at joint procurement (e.g., the EU gas purchase platform announced June 2023) have foundered on legal and competition objections. Without take‑or‑pay guarantees at scale, sellers (U.S. exporters) have little incentive to invest in additional liquefaction trains or dedicated shipping capacity. (Axios)

________________________________________

References (Part 1)

“EU trade deal with Trump seen as helping Europe ditch Russian fuels,” Axios, Jul 27, 2025. (Axios)
“The new trade deal that President Trump unveiled… includes a European pledge to buy $750 billion…,” Axios Energy & Climate, Jul 28, 2025. (Axios)
“Świnoujście LNG terminal,” Wikipedia, last updated Jul 2025. (en.wikipedia.org)
“Poland’s Gaz‑System wraps up Świnoujście LNG terminal expansion,” GIIGNL, Jul 2025. (giignl.org)
“LNG terminal off northern Greece diversifies gas routes to Europe,” Reuters, Oct 1, 2024. (Reuters)
“Germany’s Mukran LNG terminal at 5% utilisation in Q1, says DUH,” Reuters, Apr 7, 2025. (Reuters)
“Inkoo LNG Terminal Preliminary schedule for winter 2023/2024,” Gasgrid.fi, Oct 2023. (Gasgrid)
“Investors Aren’t Buying EU Pledge For $750 Billion Energy‑Buying Bonanza,” Wall Street Journal, Jul 28, 2025. (wsj.com)
“The influence of new LNG terminals on the future EU energy market,” CEER, Feb 2024. (ceer.eu)
“EPA’s climate flip,” Axios newsletter, Jul 29, 2025. (Axios)

Gratitude is our heartbeat.

Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.

Help us stay loud:

One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.

One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).

Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.

Thank you for keeping the flame alive.

https://x.com/Germantoroghio/status/1915515888515899541

Germán & Co 7/21/25 Germán & Co 7/21/25

The $750 Billion Energy Agreement: The Spark Igniting an Imminent Conflict

The Illusion of a Quick Fix

This essay examines the 2025 transatlantic energy deal—an ambitious $750 billion pledge by the EU to replace Russian gas with U.S. LNG—and argues that it embodies the false promise of an instant solution to Europe’s energy crisis. Sparked by the Ukraine war, the Nord Stream sabotage, and mounting insecurity, the agreement was framed as a decisive fix: sign the deal, ship the gas, and restore stability. Yet the plan was largely symbolic, constrained by market realities and deep structural dependencies.

The analysis situates this moment within a broader historical arc—from Europe’s post-war energy reliance and the OPEC shocks to America’s shale revolution and the rise of LNG dominance—while exploring how energy infrastructure has become a target in hybrid warfare. It highlights the geopolitical ripple effects: shifting global power balances, emerging trade wars, and critical mineral dependencies. Beyond geopolitics, the essay interrogates the cultural allure of “quick fixes” in an age of instant messaging and crisis fatigue, exposing the dangers of reducing complex energy systems to political sound bites.

“Von der Leyen's Gamble 750 Billions Deal…
An Analysis of Permanent Crisis, Failed Diplomacy, and the Art of Strategic Self-Destruction

A Heartfelt Plea: Support Independent Geopolitical and Energy Analysis

Help us stay loud. Help us keep the flame of independent analysis burning bright.

Your engagement is a lifeline. With just one click, you can amplify our voice:

Like, repost, or share our content on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central. It's free, it's private, and it's game-changing.

If you can, we humbly ask for more. Consider making a gift to support our work:

PayPal: gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com
IBAN: SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611
Swish: 076 423 90 79
Stripe: [Donation Link]

Thank you for standing with us. Together, we can continue to illuminate the path forward in these turbulent times.

https://x.com/Germantoroghio/status/1950513796927107140

Av Germán Toro Ghio
Karlstad, Sweden | July 30, 2025

________________________________________

#EnergyGeopolitics #ESGInvestmentFailure #ChineseEnergyDominance #ClimateCapitalism

Abstract

This essay examines the philosophical underpinnings of human behaviours that lead to war through the lens of a contemporary crisis: the $750 billion energy deal that threatens to spark immediate global conflict. By integrating psychoanalytic theory, political philosophy, existential thought and economic analysis, the study explores why humans repeatedly engage in seemingly irrational and destructive behaviours, even when the consequences appear catastrophic.

Drawing upon Freud’s psychoanalytic framework, the analysis reveals how unconscious motivations—particularly the death drive (Thanatos)—manifest in aggressive geopolitical strategies surrounding energy resources. These unconscious drives operate beneath idealistic rationalisations about energy security and national sovereignty, masking deeper, destructive instincts that push nations toward conflict over the massive energy deal. Naivety, rooted in idealistic overestimation of moral principles and underestimation of political realities, has led key decision‑makers to pursue provocative energy policies that ignore complex power dynamics.

The case of Yevgeny Prigozhin serves as a stark illustration of this naivety. As analysed by Germán & Co. (2024) in Prigozhin’s lesson for Trump & Co: Don’t trust Putin’s promises, Prigozhin’s trajectory—from a 24‑hour rebellion to 50‑day promises to his death within ten days—demonstrates the dangerous illusion of trusting authoritarian assurances. This case study reveals the profound unconsciousness that drives political figures like Trump, Ramaswamy and Macron to entertain negotiations with Vladimir Putin, despite clear evidence of his unreliability. Such idealistic approaches demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of how authoritarian regimes behave in international systems, particularly when trillion‑dollar energy resources are at stake.

Through Hobbes’s concept of the state of nature, the study illuminates humanity’s inherent competitiveness and provocative instincts, showing how the absence of strong international authority in energy governance creates conditions where nations revert to a “war of all against all.” The energy deal becomes a flashpoint that reveals these fundamental drives toward dominance and competition for scarce resources. Existential and absurdist perspectives from Sartre and Camus provide additional insight, interpreting the crisis as humanity’s tragic assertion of existence and freedom in the face of life’s inherent meaninglessness. The willingness to risk war over energy resources reflects a profound, if destructive, affirmation of national identity and purpose.

The analysis incorporates Marxist theory and realpolitik to explain how the energy deal represents both class struggle on a global scale and pragmatic power politics. The $750 billion figure illuminates how economic inequalities and national interests drive states toward conflict, with energy serving as both commodity and weapon in international relations.

By synthesising these philosophical perspectives with contemporary geopolitical analysis, this essay demonstrates that human engagement in war—even over seemingly rational economic interests like energy deals—is driven by a complex interplay of unconscious psychological forces, naive idealism, inherent competitiveness, existential assertions and pragmatic political calculations. The current energy crisis serves as a compelling case study of how these deep‑seated human tendencies manifest in modern international relations, offering insights into why humans continue to make destructive decisions despite clear awareness of their catastrophic potential.

This multifaceted analysis provides both theoretical understanding and practical insights into the philosophical forces that drive contemporary conflicts, using the energy deal crisis to illuminate the enduring patterns of human behaviour that lead civilisations toward war.

________________________________________

Introduction: The Illusion of a Quick Fix

In the early months of 2025, the transatlantic relationship appeared on the cusp of a dramatic transformation. Faced with a war in Ukraine that had upended the post‑Cold War order and a sabotage attack on the Nord Stream pipelines that turned the Baltic Sea into a crime scene, leaders in Washington and Brussels proclaimed a bold plan to fix the world in twenty‑four hours. At the heart of this promise was an unprecedented energy pact: the European Union would purchase $250 billion worth of U.S. energy products each year for three years—$750 billion in total. The explicit goal was to replace Russian gas with liquefied natural gas (LNG) exported from the United States. According to American officials, the deal would turn America’s shale boom into a lifeline for Europe, ensure the lights stayed on in Berlin and Paris, and deliver instant stability. In the same breath, Washington advocated for 15% tariffs on European industrial goods, presenting the measure as a move towards fairer transatlantic trade. Publicly, the agreement was portrayed as a simple solution: sign the deal, activate the gas tankers, and Europe's energy crisis would be resolved.

The Nord Stream sabotage in September 2022 starkly weaponised energy, the foundation of industrial civilisation and prosperity. This act, creating the most significant methane leak on record, highlighted critical infrastructure vulnerabilities and plunged Europe into heightened insecurity. Russia’s pipeline empire, once a symbol of mutual dependence, became an object of suspicion; every cable and pipeline turned into a potential tripwire. European diplomats whispered about “strategic autonomy,” but the urgency of winter gas shortages forced them to defer dreams of self‑reliance to a distant future. The $750 billion pledge, though never codified in binding contracts, tied Europe to American shale and took the concept of dependency to a new extreme. To meet a proposed target, the EU would need to triple its €76 billion imports of U.S. energy products by displacing cheaper suppliers like Norway. However, analysts argue that energy companies, not governments, dictate supply purchases, rendering the plan largely symbolic.

This essay interrogates the illusion of a quick fix. It begins with the circumstances that gave birth to the deal and the immediate warning by Donald Trump to his “friend” Vladimir Putin that he had ten days to end the war in Ukraine or face unspecified consequences. It then traces how the new energy order has shifted the global balance of power, how emerging trade wars and critical mineral dependencies are reshaping geopolitics, and how sabotage and hybrid warfare have turned energy infrastructure into a battlefield. The analysis relies on a wide range of credible sources—news reports, policy analyses and academic studies—to contextualise a narrative that mixes fact and speculation. By dividing the essay into two parts, each with several chapters, the aim is to provide a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of how a huge energy deal became, or could become, the spark of a broader conflict.

The events of 2025 did not take place in isolation, and a deeper understanding requires looking back at decades of European and American energy policy. After World War II, reconstruction efforts in Europe were fuelled by cheap coal and oil imported from the United States and the Middle East. The Marshall Plan financed not only factories but also pipelines and power plants. In the 1950s and 1960s, coal remained the dominant fuel in Western Europe, while the Soviet Union supplied oil and gas to its satellite states in the East. The 1973 oil crisis marked a turning point: OPEC’s embargo caused prices to quadruple, pushing industrialised nations to diversify. Western Europe responded by developing nuclear power, improving energy efficiency and launching early renewable programs. Yet the subsequent glut of cheap oil in the 1980s and 1990s lulled policymakers into complacency. When the Soviet Union collapsed, Europe embraced the idea that trade would foster peace and tapped Russian resources with gusto. Within two decades, pipelines under the Baltic and Black Seas became arteries connecting two formerly antagonistic blocs.

Another key element of context is the evolution of American energy policy. The United States went from being a net importer of oil in the 1970s to a net exporter of energy in the 2010s thanks to technological breakthroughs in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. The shale revolution unleashed vast quantities of oil and gas from formations in Texas, North Dakota and Pennsylvania. U.S. gas production nearly doubled between 2005 and 2020, and by 2023, the country surpassed Qatar and Australia to become the world's largest LNG exporter. Policies like the Energy Policy Act of 2005, lifting the crude oil export ban in 2015, and building LNG terminals at Sabine Pass and Freeport transformed the U.S. into an energy leader. The Trump administration boosted exports further by simplifying permits and encouraging allies to purchase U.S. gas. At the same time, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 introduced incentives for renewable energy, battery storage, and electric vehicles, signalling a shift towards greener energy while fossil fuel exports surged. By 2025, the U.S. will negotiate from a position of power, offering gas to Europe, subsidising its green industries, and imposing tariffs on foreign rivals.

At the level of global narratives, the notion of a quick fix resonates with a broader cultural fascination with immediate solutions. In an era dominated by social media, political messaging is often reduced to sound bites. Leaders promise to solve complex problems—be it pandemics, climate change or wars—within days or weeks. The 2025 energy deal fits this pattern: it proposes an instant remedy to Europe’s dependency, ignoring the years of investment and infrastructure that undergird energy systems. When audiences are saturated with crises, the appeal of a decisive gesture can override scepticism. Critics liken this to magical thinking, where a signature is expected to reverse the laws of physics. The essay, therefore, strives to unpack the deeper processes at play and to counter the temptation to accept simplistic solutions.

________________________________________

Part I: The Deal That Changed Everything

1. From Crisis to “Solution”

Europe’s energy crisis did not begin with the signing of an ambitious trade pact, but with the geopolitical shock of February 24 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine. As shells rained down on Kyiv and Kharkiv, the European Union confronted its dependence on Russian fossil fuels. In 2021, roughly 40 per cent of the EU’s gas consumption came from Russian pipelines; in Germany, the share was over 50 per cent. By the end of 2023 the EU had reduced Russia’s share of its gas imports to just 15 percentbruegel.org, but only by paying exorbitant prices for LNG from the United States, Qatar and even Russia itself. Norway overtook Russia as the main pipeline supplierbruegel.org, yet the shift was accompanied by a spree of investments in LNG terminals. Germany, for instance, inaugurated its first floating regasification facility in December 2022 and planned several more despite questions about their long‑term necessitycleanenergywire.org. Instead of making Europe more autonomous, the rush to import LNG created a new dependency on U.S. shale gas.

Against this backdrop, U.S. President Donald Trump returned to the White House in January 2025 after a tumultuous election. During his campaign, he repeatedly promised to end the war in Ukraine “within 24 hours.” Once in office, he sought to combine energy policy with his foreign agenda. According to Reuters, Trump and EU leaders negotiated a pledge for the EU to buy $250 billion a year of U.S. energy products for three years in exchange for exemptions from the U.S. import tariffs that his administration was imposing. The White House described this $750 billion energy deal as a measure to guarantee Europe’s energy security, reduce Russia’s leverage and address the transatlantic trade imbalance. The same week, Trump gave Putin an ultimatum: he had ten days to stop the war or face punitive measures. washingtonpost.com The ultimatum originally encompassed sanctions and tariffs rather than bombing, but the rhetorical threat to start bombing, which later echoed in political discourse, captured the imagination of analysts and fueled speculation about an impending escalation.

________________________________________

2. An Unworkable Pledge

On paper, the deal looked straightforward: European governments would commit to buying U.S. oil, gas and nuclear fuel, while Washington would reduce its tariffs on European industrial goods. In reality, the plan faced numerous obstacles. First, the EU does not purchase energy directly; energy companies—many privately owned—decide whom to buy from based on price and supply security. The EU can set tariffs and regulations, but it cannot force companies to sign contracts with U.S. exporters. Second, the volumes required to meet the $750 billion target were not available. The EU imported around €375 billion of energy in 2024, with only about €76 billion coming from the U.S. Tripling U.S. imports would require diverting flows from Norway and other suppliers or paying a premium to capture cargoes destined for Asia. Analysts cited by Reuters pointed out that the pledge would require redirecting most U.S. LNG exports to Europe and would still fall short. The EU would have to import nearly all U.S. oil exports to reach the target—a logistical impossibility, Reuters.com.

Third, the time frame made the pledge suspect. A 2022–24 surge in U.S. LNG export capacity was underway, with new terminals under construction. Still, even with these expansions, global export capacity was expected to rise from 578 billion cubic meters (bcm) in 2023 to about 850 bcm by 2030. Europe would need to lock in long‑term contracts for decades to justify building additional regasification facilities. Germany’s new terminals were designed to operate for 20–30 years, contradicting the EU’s climate goals and the expectation that gas demand will decline by up to 74 per cent by 2050 in ambitious climate scenarios. In short, the $750 billion promise was a political gesture more than a realistic energy plan. It signalled U.S. willingness to flood Europe with LNG, but also sought to reassert American dominance in the face of China’s manufacturing surge and Russia’s pipeline games.

________________________________________

3. The Ten‑Day Ultimatum and Its Consequences

Trump’s ultimatum to Putin was part performance, part pressure tactic. According to the Washington Post (citing the Associated Press), Trump gave his Russian counterpart 10–12 days to stop the war and reach a peace deal; otherwise, he would impose additional sanctions and tariffs. There was no immediate threat of bombing, yet the media’s focus on the phrase “we start bombing” reflects how rhetorical signals can inflame fears. In a climate where pipelines were exploding and drones were striking tankers in the Red Sea, an ultimatum from a U.S. president carried weight far beyond the specifics of trade policy. It underscored the idea that the energy deal and the war were interconnected: if Moscow did not comply, Washington might not only cut off Russia from markets but also take more aggressive action.

The reaction in Moscow and Brussels was complex. Russian officials dismissed the ultimatum as bluster and insisted that Russia would not abandon its objectives in Ukraine. European leaders publicly supported the push for peace but privately worried that the escalation of sanctions could further disrupt energy markets. In financial markets, U.S. LNG companies rallied on news of the potential trade windfall. Shares of producers like Cheniere Energy rose as investors bet on a sustained boom. At the same time, European industrial stocks fell, reflecting fears of higher energy costs and U.S. tariffs on European exports. The immediate consequence was a sharpening of geopolitical fault lines: Europe more firmly aligned with the United States against Russia. At the same time, Russia turned to Asia to sell its oil at a discount, circumventing Western sanctions via a shadow fleet of ageing tankers.

4. Strategic Implications

Although the energy pledge did not materialise as initially proposed, its strategic implications were significant. By publicly committing to buy vast quantities of U.S. energy, Europe signalled that it viewed American shale as a cornerstone of its future. This gave Washington leverage in other disputes, from EV tariffs to NATO burden sharing. At the same time, the pledge deepened transatlantic tensions by linking energy to trade. The United States insisted that lowering its import tariffs would require the EU to accept more American gas, oil and refined products. In effect, Washington sought to impose an energy quid pro quo: you buy our gas, we ease our tariffs. This coupling blurred the boundaries between energy security and trade negotiations, making it harder for Europe to pursue independent policies.

For Russia, the prospective EU–U.S. deal was a wake‑up call. Moscow realised that its long‑term strategy of leveraging pipelines to control European politics was faltering. In response, Russia intensified its hybrid warfare against undersea infrastructure. It gathered a fleet of roughly 400 old tankers with opaque ownership structures and minimal insurance that could evade sanctions and, according to Western security agencies, drag anchors across undersea cables and pipelines in shallow waters. Finnish investigators suspect that one such vessel, the Eagle S, cut the Estlink 2 electricity cable connecting Finland and Estonia in December 2024. In total, at least ten pipelines and cables have been sabotaged in the Baltic Sea since Russia invaded Ukraine. By turning merchant ships into instruments of sabotage, Russia weaponised interdependence and blurred the line between trade and war.

China watched these developments with interest. As Europe and the United States sparred over tariffs and energy, Beijing accelerated its Belt and Road investments in critical minerals, rare‑earth processing and EV manufacturing. Analysts have argued that China dominates 68 per cent of the world’s nickel refining, 40 per cent of copper, 59 per cent of lithium and 73 per cent of cobalt processing. It controls roughly 70 per cent of cathode production and 85 per cent of anode production for EV batteries, crossdockinsights.com. In the context of the energy pact, Chinese officials interpreted the EU–U.S. arrangement as an attempt to sideline Chinese producers and restrict access to Western markets. Beijing responded by threatening to limit exports of critical minerals such as gallium, germanium and antimony. Thus, a deal meant to reduce Russian influence inadvertently spurred a three-way contest between the United States, Europe, and China over energy, trade, and technology.

________________________________________

5. Domestic Politics and Public Perception

Within both the United States and the European Union, domestic politics complicated the deal. American environmentalists decried the expansion of LNG exports, pointing to a 33 per cent higher greenhouse‑gas footprint for LNG compared to coal. They warned that investing billions in gas infrastructure would lock in emissions for decades and jeopardise climate goals. Republicans framed the deal as a triumph of American energy dominance, while Democrats worried that it would alienate climate‑conscious voters. In Europe, the left criticised the plan as a capitulation to U.S. corporate interests, while conservative governments in Poland and Hungary accused Brussels of undermining national sovereignty.

Public perception also shifted. In Germany, protests against LNG terminals erupted as activists highlighted the environmental risks of methane leaks (cleanenergywire.org. The promise of cheaper energy from U.S. shale did not assuage concerns that Germany was trading one form of dependency for another. In France and Italy, inflationary pressures due to high gas prices fuelled resentment toward both Russia and the United States. The narrative of a “quick fix” was replaced by a recognition that energy security is messy, expensive and deeply political. The illusion that stability could be signed into existence dissolved as sabotage, cyber‑attacks and trade disputes escalated.

Domestic debates were further complicated by the diversity of interests within Europe. Germany, with its large industrial base, feared that losing access to cheap pipeline gas would erode its competitiveness in chemicals, steel and automotive manufacturing. Poland and the Baltic states, historically wary of Russian influence, embraced the idea of cutting off Moscow and welcomed U.S. LNG as a geopolitical insurance policy. France, which relies heavily on nuclear power, saw the crisis as an opportunity to promote nuclear energy as a low‑carbon alternative; it pressed for EU funding for new reactors and argued that nuclear should be classified as “green” in the EU taxonomy. Southern European countries like Spain and Portugal were less dependent on Russian gas. They lobbied for more interconnectors across the Pyrenees to export their surplus LNG and renewable electricity to the rest of the continent. These differing priorities made it difficult for the European Commission to craft a unified response. When Brussels negotiated the $750 billion energy pledge, it had to balance the demands of German industry, Polish security concerns, French nuclear lobbying and the environmental movement.

In the United States, the energy pact became entangled with the culture wars. Conservative commentators celebrated the return of American “energy dominance,” citing the deal as proof that the world needed U.S. fossil fuels. They argued that by selling gas to Europe, America could weaken adversaries and create jobs at home. Progressive voices countered that doubling down on fossil fuel exports undermined the Biden administration’s climate commitments and would expose frontline communities in Texas and Louisiana to increased pollution. They demanded that stronger environmental protections and investments in renewables accompany any increase in exports. Labour unions were split: some supported LNG infrastructure for its construction jobs; others feared that overreliance on gas would slow the growth of domestic clean‑energy industries. Meanwhile, state governments in Louisiana and Texas pushed for more export terminals, while coastal communities protested new pipelines crossing wetlands and fisheries.

Public opinion polls in early 2025 showed a complex picture. In Europe, a majority supported reducing dependence on Russia but were divided on whether to increase imports from the United States or accelerate renewables. In the U.S., a majority favoured supporting Ukraine and selling gas to allies but were wary of a trade war that could raise the price of consumer goods. The interplay of these domestic factors meant that the $750 billion energy deal was never solely about economics; it was a mirror reflecting the political and cultural divisions within and between societies. Understanding these divisions is essential to grasping why the deal, though headline‑grabbing, did not proceed as advertised.

________________________________________

Part II: The New Energy Order

1. LNG Ascendant: Europe’s Gas Transformation

A global realignment in gas flows marks the new energy order. The Nord Stream explosion forced Europe to look beyond pipelines for security. Within a year, the EU imported 8.4 million tonnes of LNG in the first quarter of 2025, surpassing the 8.2 million tonnes of pipeline gas for the first time. LNG imports rose 12 per cent compared with the same period in 2024, and spending on LNG increased 45 per cent to €5.3 billion. The United States became the EU’s largest LNG supplier, accounting for 50.7 per cent by value, while Russia still supplied 17 per cent and Qatar 10.8 per cent. Simultaneously, Norway remained the largest pipeline supplier, meaning that Europe’s gas mix diversified but remained vulnerable to seaborne disruptions.bruegel.org.

The shift to LNG did not eliminate environmental concerns. Studies from Cornell University found that the greenhouse-gas footprint of LNG is 33 per cent higher than that of coal. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimated that LNG produces 67 per cent more emissions than pipeline gas. Methane leakage during liquefaction, transport and regasification undermines the perceived climate benefits of gas as a “bridge fuel.” Critics thus argue that building billions of dollars of LNG infrastructure may lock Europe into a high‑emissions path and delay the adoption of renewables.

Nevertheless, geopolitical realities trumped climate considerations. Germany’s government defended its decision to build multiple LNG terminals by citing the need for a safety buffer, cleanenergywire.org. Policymakers emphasised that floating storage and regasification units (FSRUs) can be repurposed or relocated once gas demand declines. Yet environmental NGOs pointed out that the combined capacity of planned terminals far exceeds projected demand, suggesting that Germany might be overspending for infrastructure that could become stranded assets as renewable energy expands. The German case illustrates the tension between energy security and climate policy: in the short term, gas ensures heat and industrial output; in the long term, it may hinder decarbonisation.

2. The Weaponisation of Trade: Tariffs, Subsidies and EV Battles

While Europe turned to American gas, trade relations between the U.S. and its allies deteriorated. In May 2025, the U.S. administration finalised high tariffs on imports of solar cells and modules from Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand and Cambodia. Reuters.com. China had relocated production to these countries to evade earlier tariffs; the U.S. move aimed to prevent circumvention but raised costs for American solar installers. A few months earlier, in September 2024, the U.S. announced 100 per cent tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, 50 per cent on solar cells and semiconductors, and 25 per cent on batteries, steel, aluminium and critical minerals. reuters.com. These measures, combined with earlier Trump‑era duties on $300 billion of Chinese goods, signalled a full‑blown trade war. Industry groups warned that the tariffs would disrupt supply chains and raise costs, Reuters.com. Chinese manufacturers responded by shifting production to Indonesia and Laos, Reuters.com.

The European Union followed suit. In October 2024, the EU imposed provisional duties ranging from 17 per cent to 35.3 per cent on Chinese EVs. Brussels accused Beijing of subsidising its EV industry and flooding Europe with cheap cars. Chinese exports to the EU had surged from 33 thousand vehicles in 2020 to 485 thousand between October 2022 and September 2023. The tariff decision triggered immediate backlash. Beijing threatened to impose tariffs on European cars and to restrict exports of critical minerals necessary for EV batteries. The EU and China later opened negotiations to replace tariffs with minimum prices, reflecting a desire to avoid an escalating trade war. Nevertheless, the battle over EVs revealed the fragility of the green transition: subsidies and tariffs intended to promote clean technologies were instead spurring protectionism and retaliation.

Tariffs on critical minerals further complicated the picture. The United States and the European Union both identified minerals such as lithium, cobalt and nickel as strategic assets. In the Crossdock Insights report, analysts noted that China refines 68 per cent of the world’s nickel, 40 per cent of copper, 59 per cent of lithium and 73 per cent of cobalt (crossdockinsights.com. It also accounts for 70 per cent of cathode and 85 per cent of anode production, giving it a dominant position in the battery supply chain, crossdockinsights.com. When Washington raised tariffs on critical mineral imports, Beijing responded by restricting exports of antimony, gallium, germanium, and tungsten. The EU and the U.S. both passed legislation to boost domestic extraction and processing: the EU’s Critical Raw Materials Act aims to mine 10 per cent, refine 40 per cent and recycle 25 per cent of strategic minerals within the bloc by 2030, while the U.S. invoked the Defence Production Act to fund mining projects. Far from smoothing the green transition, these measures highlighted a resource scramble reminiscent of 19th‑century imperialism.

________________________________________

3. Critical Minerals and the New Scramble for Africa

The competition for critical minerals has fostered new geopolitical alliances and conflicts. Africa and Latin America, home to vast deposits of lithium, cobalt and rare earths, have become arenas of economic diplomacy. China’s state‑owned enterprises have secured long‑term leases on mines in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Zambia and Zimbabwe. Western governments, alarmed by this dominance, have sought to counterbalance Beijing by financing alternative mining projects and forging Minerals Security Partnerships. For example, the U.S. has invested in lithium extraction in Chile and cobalt processing in Tanzania. The EU has provided aid to Namibia and Morocco in exchange for access to critical minerals.

This scramble is not only economic but also environmental and social. Mining of cobalt and lithium often involves child labour and environmental degradation. When Western firms demand ethical sourcing while Chinese companies continue operations under laxer standards, a competitive tension arises: should governments prioritise supply security or labour rights? The conversation about “lithium wars” echoes earlier conflicts over oil, and though no major military confrontation has erupted, the risk of resource‑driven instability looms large. Coupled with the rise of tariffs and subsidies, the scramble for minerals underscores how the green transition has become as geopolitically charged as the fossil‑fuel era.

4. Environmental Implications and the Green Paradox

The green paradox refers to the phenomenon where policies intended to accelerate the transition to clean energy inadvertently increase emissions in the short term. The rush to build LNG infrastructure is a textbook example. LNG has a higher carbon footprint than coal or pipeline gas due to energy‑intensive liquefaction and leakage. Yet governments justify LNG expansion as a necessary “bridge.” Similarly, the production of EV batteries requires energy‑intensive mining and processing; if the electricity comes from coal, the overall emissions may be high. When the United States or the EU imposes tariffs on solar panels and EVs, it can slow the adoption of clean technologies and raise costs for consumers. Additionally, the fragmentation of supply chains means that manufacturing may shift to countries with weaker environmental regulations, undermining global climate efforts.

A comprehensive climate strategy must address these paradoxes by integrating energy security, industrial policy and emissions reduction. That includes investing in green hydrogen, grid upgrades and storage rather than simply replacing pipeline gas with LNG. It also means diversifying supply chains for critical minerals and establishing ethical standards for extraction. Without such measures, the new energy order may replicate the extractive and exploitative dynamics of the oil age, with new winners and losers but the same underlying logic of domination.

________________________________________

Part III: Global Power Positions

1. Russia: Sabotage, Shadow Fleets and Energy Warfare

Russia’s power in the global energy system has historically rested on its vast reserves of oil and gas and its network of pipelines connecting Siberia to European markets. The collapse of this model after 2022 forced Moscow to innovate in the domain of energy warfare. When the EU drastically reduced imports of Russian gas from about half of its supply to 15 per cent, bruegel.org, Russia pivoted to Asia and started selling at a discount. To circumvent the G7’s price cap on Russian oil exports, Moscow assembled a shadow fleet of around 400 ageing tankers. These vessels, often registered in countries like the Seychelles or the Marshall Islands and lacking proper insurance, have transported Russian, Iranian and Venezuelan oil beyond the reach of Western sanctions. Experts note that fewer than 10 per cent of these ships have proper insurance, but they make up 17 per cent of the global oil tanker fleet. Their operations are not entirely clandestine; they openly load oil at Russian ports like Primorsk and Ust Luga, but they often turn off transponders and ignore coast‑guard instructions.

The shadow fleet’s most troubling role lies in its potential for sabotage. Investigations in 2024–25 linked Russian‑associated tankers to the severing of multiple undersea cables and pipelines in the Baltic Sea. In December 2024, a Russian tanker named Eagle S was impounded in Finland after an EstLink2 cable connecting Finland and Estonia was cut. The ship’s missing anchor was found near the damaged cable, and the vessel was also fitted with surveillance equipment, unusual for a merchant shipfriendsofeurope.org. Earlier, several other cables and the Balticconnector gas pipeline had been damaged by ships dragging anchors. Western officials suspect a deliberate campaign of hybrid warfare designed to increase uncertainty and raise insurance costs for shipping. Although definitive proof of state involvement is elusive, the pattern of incidents—ten pipelines and cables sabotaged since the invasion of Ukraine (friendsofeurope.org )—points to a strategy of weaponised interdependence.

Russia’s cyber operations complement its physical sabotage. While this essay focuses primarily on energy infrastructure, it is essential to note that cyberattacks can disrupt energy markets and funding flows. Russia, along with other states, employs sophisticated malware to target electricity grids, oil refineries and port operations. The synergy between physical sabotage (e.g., dragging anchors) and cyberattacks creates a multi‑domain threat: sabotage at sea can be combined with malware attacks on pipeline control systems, amplifying the impact. The Nord Stream explosions were preceded by Russia’s use of cyber operations against Ukraine’s grid since 2015, demonstrating Moscow’s integrated approach to energy warfare.

2. China: Minerals, Manufacturing and Maritime Choke Points

China’s grand strategy in the 21st century revolves around securing supply chains for energy and technology. While Russia relies on pipelines, China focuses on critical minerals and manufacturing capacity. As previously mentioned, Beijing refines the majority of the world’s nickel, cobalt, lithium and copper and dominates battery production. This gives China leverage over the clean energy transition. In 2010, Beijing temporarily cut rare‑earth exports to Japan, demonstrating its willingness to weaponise mineral supply chains. In 2024–25 China restricted exports of antimony, gallium, germanium, tungsten and bismuth in retaliation for U.S. tariffscrossdockinsights.com. Price spikes following these restrictions underscored the vulnerability of Western industries to Chinese supply decisions.

China is also expanding its influence through infrastructure networks. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) funds ports, railways and pipelines across Asia, Africa and Europe. In the energy realm, Beijing has invested heavily in ports at Gwadar (Pakistan), Hambantota (Sri Lanka), and Piraeus (Greece), creating a string of logistical hubs that can facilitate both trade and naval operations. Chinese companies are building LNG terminals and regasification facilities in Pakistan and Bangladesh, expanding the market for Qatari and U.S. gas but also cementing Chinese control over supply chains. In the South China Sea, Beijing has constructed artificial islands and deployed coast‑guard vessels to assert control over waters that may contain untapped gas reserves. The Taiwan Strait remains a critical choke point; an effective blockade could disrupt global semiconductor and electronics supply chains and hinder the transit of LNG from the United States to Asia.

China’s military strategy includes anti‑access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities designed to make intervention by the U.S. Navy costly. Long-range anti-ship missiles, submarines, and anti-satellite weapons could threaten commercial shipping. Moreover, Beijing has studied the concept of weaponised interdependence: states can coerce others by exploiting their control over global networks. The network may be financial (as when Washington uses SWIFT to sanction banks) or physical (as when Beijing controls rare‑earth supplies). The interplay between infrastructure control and economic leverage is at the heart of China’s rise.

________________________________________

3. Iran: The Straits of Hormuz and the Spectre of Blockade

Iran holds a unique position in global energy geopolitics because it sits astride the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most important oil chokepoint. The Strait is only about 34 km wide at its narrowest point, with shipping lanes just 2 km wide in each direction, yet roughly 20 per cent of global petroleum liquids and about one‑fifth of LNG trade pass through the Strait. In 2024, flows through the Strait of Hormuz averaged 20 million barrels per day, equivalent to about 20 per cent of global consumption. While Saudi Arabia and the UAE have pipelines that can bypass Hormuz, they can reroute only about 2.6 million barrels per day. Hence, any blockade of the Strait would cause an immediate shock to oil and gas markets.

In July 2025, Reuters reported that U.S. intelligence had detected Iranian preparations to deploy naval mines in the Persian Gulf. The Iranian military had loaded mines onto vessels as tensions with Israel escalated after U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, Reuters.com. Although Iran has threatened to close the Strait for decades, it has never done so; the mere possibility of closure is used as a deterrent. U.S. officials described the mine deployment as a potential ruse, but acknowledged that mining could have severely hobbled global commerce. Iran has more than 5,000 naval mines and could deploy them quickly, according to Reuters.com. The U.S. Navy maintains mine‑countermeasure vessels in Bahrain, but during the 2025 escalation, these ships were temporarily removed from the region, leaving the Strait more vulnerable. reuters.com. The incident highlights how a regional conflict in the Middle East can threaten global energy flows.

Iran’s energy strategy also involves proxy forces and allies. Tehran supports Yemen’s Houthis, who in 2023–25 targeted tankers in the Red Sea using drones. Iran has built relationships with militias in Iraq and Syria to threaten pipelines and logistics. Meanwhile, its oil production has remained high despite U.S. sanctions, thanks to clandestine sales to China. In July 2025, the EU’s restrictions on Russia encouraged Moscow and Tehran to deepen their partnership, with Russia investing in Iranian oil fields and pipelines to bypass sanctions. Thus, Iran occupies a dual role: both as a potential blockade power and as a partner of convenience for sanctioned states.

________________________________________

4. North Korea: Cyber Larceny and Nuclear Funding

North Korea may be an economic minnow in physical energy markets, but it wields outsized influence through cyber operations. UN sanctions monitors reported in February 2024 that North Korea had carried out 58 cyberattacks on cryptocurrency companies since 2017, stealing about $3 billion. These funds, according to the monitors, may have financed up to half of Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program or online.org. The cyber thefts targeted defense companies and their supply chains, showcasing the regime’s ability to weaponise digital interdependence. North Korea’s cyber workforce was estimated at 8,400 personnel in 2024, up from 6,800 in 2022. The country’s hacking groups, such as Lazarus, have attacked banks, cryptocurrency exchanges and energy companies across Asia and North America. In effect, Pyongyang converts stolen digital assets into real resources for its missile and nuclear programs.

The implications for the energy order are twofold. First, North Korea demonstrates that cyberattacks can substitute for physical resource extraction. By hacking cryptocurrency exchanges, it finances weapons without exporting oil or gas. Second, the targeting of energy companies—including power grid operators and oil producers—suggests that cyber war is a complement to kinetic warfare. A future crisis in East Asia could involve simultaneous cyber assaults on LNG terminals, pipelines and shipping firms, disrupting energy flows while missiles fly. North Korea’s alliances with Russia and Iran, and its connections with Chinese technology firms, hint at a broader coalition of states using cyber tools to challenge the U.S.‑led order.

________________________________________

5. Turkey: Aspirations and Limitations as an Energy Hub

Turkey, straddling Europe and Asia, has long harboured ambitions to become a gas hub that transits energy from the Caspian and Middle East to Europe. Its geography is ideal: pipelines from Azerbaijan and Iran converge in eastern Turkey, and the Bosphorus connects the Black Sea to the Mediterranean. However, a July 2025 report on Turkey’s gas strategy notes that domestic production covers only 4 per cent of Turkish gas demand; the country imported 52 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas in 2024. Russia supplied 42 per cent, Azerbaijan 22 per cent, and Iran 14 per cent of these imports. Turkey’s storage capacity is under five bcm, far below that of major hubs like the Netherlands (which has over 12 bcm). Export capacity to EU markets is limited; existing pipelines are already utilised at high rates. Each of Turkey’s suppliers faces constraints: Russia’s gas may be phased out by the EU by 2027, Azerbaijan’s production is plateauing, and Iran faces sanctions and seasonal domestic shortages. Potential new suppliers such as Iraq, Turkmenistan, Egypt and Israel also deal with political turmoil and infrastructure gaps.

As a result, analysts conclude that Turkey’s hub project is more political narrative than commercial reality. To achieve hub status, Ankara would need to invest heavily in LNG import capacity, expand storage facilities and develop reverse‑flow pipelines. It would also have to navigate complex geopolitics: balancing relations with Russia (to import gas), Azerbaijan (to transit gas), Iran (to secure supplies), the EU (to deliver gas) and the United States (to avoid secondary sanctions). Turkey’s relations with the U.S. and NATO are complicated by its purchase of Russian S‑400 air defence systems and its role in the Black Sea. The “dancing on the fault line” metaphor captures how Turkey seeks to court multiple partners without committing to any, turning energy into a tool of statecraft.

________________________________________

6. United States: Shale Hegemony and Tariff Diplomacy

The United States has become the world’s largest LNG exporter, surpassing Qatar and Australia. From 2015 to 2023, the U.S. doubled its natural gas output due to the shale boom. In 2023, the U.S. supplied roughly 45 per cent of Europe’s LNG imports. The rapid expansion of LNG terminals along the Gulf Coast, combined with rising global demand, has turned American gas into a geopolitical instrument. The $750 billion deal thus fits into a broader strategy to use energy exports to reinforce alliances and punish adversaries.

However, U.S. leadership in energy is not unchallenged. The International Energy Outlook 2025 warns that global LNG export capacity may reach 850 bcm by 2030, exceeding demand under ambitious climate scenarios. This raises the risk that new LNG facilities could become stranded assets. At the same time, U.S. industrial policy has taken a confrontational turn. Tariffs on Chinese EVs, solar panels and critical minerals reflect a strategy of tariff diplomacy: by imposing high duties, Washington hopes to protect the domestic industry and gain leverage in negotiations. The risk is that such measures could provoke retaliation and hamper the global energy transition. If the U.S. is seen as using energy to coerce allies (e.g., by conditioning tariff relief on LNG purchases), transatlantic cohesion could weaken.

________________________________________

7. The European Union: Between Dependency and Diversification

The European Union sits at the nexus of these power dynamics. It is the largest customer for both Russian pipeline gas (historically) and U.S. LNG (today). The EU’s long‑term strategy aims to phase out Russian gas by 2027, increase renewables, and create a hydrogen economy. But in the medium term, it must balance price stability with supply security. After the Nord Stream explosions, EU policymakers realised that most gas now arrives by sea; approximately 87 per cent of European gas imports in 2023 came via LNGbruegel.org. This shift exposes Europe to maritime chokepoints like the Suez Canal and the Strait of Hormuz, as well as undersea sabotage. The EU has taken steps to improve monitoring: NATO established the Critical Undersea Infrastructure Coordination Cell, and member states have increased naval patrols. theguardian.com. Yet experts warn that deep-sea cables are hard to defend; they carry 90 per cent of global internet traffic and trade $9 trillion of financial transactions daily. A coordinated attack could cause catastrophic disruption, but such sabotage requires specialised equipment and is thus more likely to be used as a threat than as an overt act.

The EU is also grappling with industrial policy. While it imposes tariffs on Chinese EVs and invests in battery plants, it must avoid alienating China—a significant export market—and ensure that supply chain diversification does not lead to higher costs for consumers. The EU’s Critical Raw Materials Act seeks to reduce dependence on imports and build domestic capacity. But success depends on environmental permits, community acceptance and international partnerships. The EU’s energy strategy thus involves a delicate balancing act: diversify suppliers, build resilience, and maintain open markets while avoiding retaliation from major powers.

________________________________________

8. Weaponised Interdependence: A Conceptual Lens

Throughout this section, a recurring theme is weaponised interdependence—a concept coined by Henry Farrell and Abraham Newman to describe how states use global networks of trade, finance and information to coerce others. Energy is a classic domain of interdependence: pipelines, LNG terminals, undersea cables and shipping lanes create mutual dependencies. When Russia drags anchors over wires, or when Iran threatens to mine the Strait of Hormuz, they are leveraging interdependence to gain strategic advantage. When China restricts exports of critical minerals, it is weaponising its dominance in supply chains. When the U.S. conditions tariff relief on LNG purchases, it is using trade to enforce compliance.

The key insight is that networks are both sources of wealth and tools of coercion. States that control nodes in these networks can threaten to disrupt flows, causing economic pain. At the same time, interdependence can deter conflict by raising the costs of war. The challenge for policymakers is to manage these networks in a way that preserves resilience while reducing vulnerability. This may involve diversifying suppliers, building redundancy, and developing norms against sabotage. In the absence of such measures, interdependence becomes a latent battlefield—a silent war fought below the waterline, in the code of software and the murk of global finance.

________________________________________

Part IV: Scenarios for 2025–2030

Predicting the future is fraught with uncertainty, but scenario analysis can help illuminate possible trajectories. This section outlines three broad scenarios for the period 2025–2030: Managed Rivalry, The Great Fracture, and Grey Zone Instability. Each scenario draws on current trends and known risks; none is predetermined. The probabilities assigned (25 per cent, 20 per cent and 55 per cent) are illustrative and reflect the author’s judgment rather than scientific forecasts.

________________________________________

1. Managing Rivalry (Probability: 25 %)

In the Managed Rivalry scenario, global actors avoid outright war despite hardened blocs. The U.S. and China should continue their technological and trade competition, but set up guardrails to prevent escalation. Europe will gradually reduce its reliance on Russian gas by 2027, while expanding renewables and hydrogen. LNG markets stabilise; Qatar and the U.S. maintain high exports; and new LNG projects in Canada and Mozambique come online, increasing supply. Prices remain relatively stable, though above pre‑2022 levels. The EU’s Critical Raw Materials Act and the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act spur domestic mining, reducing reliance on Chinese minerals. Tariff wars calm as the EU and China agree on minimum prices for EVs, Reuters.com, and the U.S. moderates its tariffs after negotiating climate provisions with Beijing. Iran refrains from closing the Strait of Hormuz; occasional skirmishes occur, but the U.S. Navy and regional allies deter a blockade. Russia continues selling oil via the shadow fleet but avoids large‑scale sabotage, fearing retaliation.

Under this scenario, energy security improves, though not uniformly. Countries invest in grid resilience and monitor undersea cables. NATO’s Critical Undersea Infrastructure Coordination Cell expands its capabilities, and states share intelligence on shadow fleet movements. The risk of catastrophic sabotage diminishes as detection improves and as Russia realises that further attacks could provoke NATO retaliation. Meanwhile, cooperation on climate change resumes; global emissions peak by 2025 and begin to decline. The price of oil stabilises around $80–$90 per barrel, and natural gas contracts are signed on a long‑term basis. Although competition persists, the world avoids major disruptions. This scenario is plausible if leaders prioritise risk management and if domestic politics do not force extreme actions.

________________________________________

2. The Great Fracture (Probability: 20 %)

The Great Fracture scenario imagines a cascading crisis. It begins with a drone attack on a central LNG terminal in Qatar, perhaps orchestrated by a proxy group. Fire engulfs storage tanks; exports drop by several million tonnes for months. Global gas prices spike above $30 per million British thermal units. Meanwhile, tensions in the Middle East ignite: in retaliation for U.S. strikes on nuclear facilities, Iran mines the Strait of Hormuz and fires missiles at tankers. Oil prices surge to $200 per barrel; Western economies tip into recession. Saudi Arabia and the UAE use their pipelines that bypass Hormuz, but the capacity is insufficient to meet global demand. China and India, dependent on Hormuz for 69 per cent of their crude imports, suffer severe energy shortages. In East Asia, a separate crisis erupts when China imposes a quarantine on Taiwan to prevent arms shipments. U.S. and allied navies escort cargo ships through the Taiwan Strait, raising the risk of confrontation. A cyberattack attributed to North Korea turns off an LNG terminal in South Korea, causing a domestic blackout. Russia sees an opportunity and severs several more undersea cables in the Baltic and North Seas, disrupting internet service and electricity for millions.

In this scenario, globalisation fractures. Countries scramble to secure supplies; export restrictions proliferate; energy markets become segmented. The International Energy Agency coordinates emergency stock releases, but prices remain volatile. Inflation soars; governments impose price controls and rationing. Political instability rises: protests sweep through Europe over high energy bills; authoritarian leaders use emergencies to consolidate power—the U.S. and China erect digital firewalls, splitting the internet. Without a functioning global order, climate cooperation collapses. Emissions rise as coal use surges to replace disrupted gas supplies. The Great Fracture is a worst‑case scenario but illustrates how interconnected vulnerabilities—physical chokepoints, cyber networks, and trade ties—can cascade into a systemic crisis. The probability may be lower than in the other scenarios, but policymakers must prepare contingency plans.

________________________________________

3. Grey Zone Instability (Probability: 55 %)

The most likely trajectory, according to this analysis, is Grey Zone Instability—a world of permanent fever that neither descends into world war nor achieves stable rivalry. In this scenario, sabotage, sanctions, cyberattacks, and tariff wars become routine. Russia continues to wage hybrid warfare against Europe, dragging anchors over cables and pipelines. friendsofeurope.org. Finland, Estonia and Sweden invest in cable protection, but accidents and deliberate damage persist. The shadow fleet is expected to expand, with more than 500 vessels by 2027. Western navies impound some ships, but new ones appear under different flags. Russia, Iran and North Korea coordinate cyber campaigns; power grids in Europe and Asia face periodic outages. North Korea’s hacking groups steal billions from cryptocurrency exchanges, reuters.com, funding further nuclear tests. Iran orchestrates sporadic harassment of tankers, keeping the price of oil above $100 per barrel without fully closing Hormuz.

Trade wars intensify in the grey zone scenario. The U.S. imposes additional tariffs on Chinese computer chips and green technologies; China retaliates with export restrictions on rare earths. The EU struggles to maintain unity; some member states—Hungary, Slovakia, Italy—seek deals with Russia to secure cheaper energy. Turkey leverages its geostrategic position to act as a conduit for Russian gas, exploiting loopholes in sanctions instituted by the United States. Meanwhile, the energy transition slows. Investments in renewables continue, but supply chain disruptions and higher input costs delay projects—methane emissions from LNG increase as exporters cut corners to reduce costs. Climate policy becomes politicised with some governments prioritising energy security at the expense of emissions targets. The grey zone becomes the new normal: high tension, frequent incidents, but no decisive break.

Under this scenario, resilience becomes a buzzword. Companies diversify suppliers; governments stockpile critical minerals; ports and pipelines are hardened. Insurance premiums for shipping and undersea cables rise dramatically. The private sector invests in satellite surveillance to monitor the shadow fleet and undersea infrastructure. Public-private partnerships emerge to share intelligence, following recommendations from policy experts for public-private monitoring (kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu). Still, the constant stress exacts a toll: economic growth slows, investment falters, and trust between states erodes. Grey Zone Instability is not as catastrophic as the Great Fracture. Still, it is a world of constant low-grade warfare, making long-term planning difficult and undermining the confidence necessary for large-scale climate action.

________________________________________

Part V: The Coming Decade – A Pre‑War Energy Order?

1. Historical Analogies: 1913 and 2025

Historians often compare today’s geopolitical landscape to Europe in 1913: a world of increasing trade and interdependence teetering on the brink of war. In 1913, telegraph cables and steamships connected continents. Leaders believed that economic integration would make war irrational. A year later, a single assassination triggered a chain reaction. Today, data cables and LNG tankers are the arteries of globalisation. The assumption persists that rational actors will avoid cutting these lifelines because the costs are too high. Yet history warns that miscalculations can happen. Europe’s pre‑World War I trading partners still went to war because alliances and nationalism overrode commercial logic.

In the 2020s, the parallels are striking. States are deeply connected through energy flows and supply chains, but also distrustful and increasingly nationalist. Undersea cables carry more than 90 per cent of the world’s internet traffic (theguardian.com) and facilitate about $9 trillion in trade per day (rand.org. The sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines and subsequent damage to Baltic cables revealed that these networks are far more vulnerable than previously acknowledged. theguardian.com. The RAND Corporation notes that while attacking deep-sea cables is difficult and requires specialised equipment, such attacks could have catastrophic consequences, necessitating greater investment in surveillance and resilience. Similarly, the Kleinman Centre argues that transatlantic policymakers must treat sabotage threats as seriously as supply security, recommending that NATO invoke Article 4 and build public‑private partnerships to monitor infrastructure.

________________________________________

2. Chokepoints and Tripwires

Geographers speak of maritime chokepoints—narrow passages whose disruption can trigger global crises. The Strait of Hormuz is one such chokepoint. When Iran loaded mines onto vessels in the Persian Gulf in mid-2025, Reuters.com, analysts feared a blockade that could cut off one‑fifth of global oil and LNG flow, seia.gov. The Suez Canal and Bab al‑Mandeb are others: attacks on shipping in these regions by Houthi rebels have already prompted Saudi Arabia to reroute oil through its East‑West pipelineeia.gov. At the same time, new pipelines and export terminals in Saudi Arabia and the UAE provide 2.6 million barrels per day of bypass capacity, which is insufficient to replace flows through Hormuz. A closure of Hormuz would thus create an energy shock reminiscent of the 1973 oil embargo.

On land, the Balticconnector and Nord Stream pipelines illustrate how terrestrial and subsea infrastructure are equally vulnerable. The 2022 Nord Stream explosions not only interrupted gas flows but also released vast amounts of methane. Subsequent incidents—damaged cables in October 2023, November 2024, and December 2024—show that sabotage may be an ongoing strategy rather than a one-off event. As the GMF report notes, most of the vessels suspected of dragging anchors over cables sailed from Russian ports and may belong to Russia’s shadow fleet. Even if accidents cannot be conclusively proven as sabotage, the pattern fosters mistrust and prompts costly security measures. Every undersea cable now resembles a tripwire: its severing may not cause immediate conflict, but it raises the temperature and could justify retaliation.

________________________________________

3. Technological Arms Race: Surveillance and Resilience

In response to rising threats, states and companies are investing in surveillance technologies. NATO and the EU are developing new sensors to monitor underwater activity. Private firms offer satellite imagery and AI‑driven analysis to track ships and detect anomalies. RAND analysts highlight the need for attack submarines and patrol vessels to deter sabotage and to protect cable landings. The UK and Norway have commissioned specialised

surveillance ships to monitor critical infrastructure, theguardian.com. Meanwhile, energy companies deploy drones and remotely operated vehicles to inspect pipelines and cables. These measures represent a technological arms race in the maritime domain. The challenge is that defence costs are high and cannot guarantee complete security; even with sensors, a determined actor can exploit gaps, particularly in remote or contested waters.

Building resilience also involves redundancy. Europe is considering constructing additional gas interconnectors and storage facilities to reduce reliance on any single route. The EU’s plans include the Baltic Pipe connecting Norway to Poland and the South‑East European Gas Corridor bringing Azeri gas to the Balkans. However, new pipelines require years to build and may conflict with climate goals. In the digital realm, companies are laying additional internet cables along diverse routes to ensure that traffic can reroute if one line is cut. Some nations propose to store more data locally to reduce cross‑border dependencies. Whether redundancy will suffice to maintain stability in a crisis remains uncertain.

________________________________________

4. Climate and Conflict: The Feedback Loop

Climate change is both a driver and a casualty of the new energy order. Extreme weather events—heat waves, droughts, floods—can disrupt energy production and transportation. For example, droughts in the Mississippi and Rhine rivers have impeded coal and oil barge movements, while heat waves have strained electricity grids. When energy systems are already under stress due to sabotage or trade wars, climate shocks can tip them into crisis. Conversely, conflict undermines climate mitigation: wars destroy infrastructure, divert investment and generate emissions. The sabotage of Nord Stream released methane equivalent to millions of cars. The burning of oil storage facilities after drone strikes sends plumes of CO₂ into the atmosphere. Thus, there is a feedback loop: geopolitical instability increases emissions, which in turn exacerbates climate impacts that further destabilise societies.

Anticipating this loop, some analysts call for a wartime climate mobilisation akin to the U.S. mobilisation during World War II. They argue that energy security and climate security should be integrated: investment in renewables not only reduces emissions but also lessens dependence on hostile suppliers. Climate adaptation measures—such as flood protections for ports and cooling systems for data centres—are also essential to protect critical energy infrastructure. Yet such integration requires political will and international cooperation. If states continue to weaponise interdependence, the synergy between climate and conflict will likely worsen.

________________________________________

5. The Decade Ahead: Managing Risk and Building Norms

The coming decade will test whether global actors can develop norms and institutions to manage the pre‑war energy order. Some proposals include:

1. International agreements on critical infrastructure protection. Similar to treaties on space or the high seas, states could commit not to sabotage undersea cables and pipelines in peacetime and to cooperate in repairs. Verification would be challenging, but agreements could reduce ambiguity and provide a basis for sanctions.

2. Coordinated sanctions on shadow fleets. The U.S., EU and allies could harmonise sanctions against vessels participating in the covert oil trade. By targeting shipping insurance, financing and docking rights, they could make it harder for shadow tankers to operate. Sharing intelligence on vessel ownership and movement is crucial. The Friends of Europe report suggests that impounding suspect ships and insisting on transparent insurance could reduce the risk of sabotage.

3. Digital and cyber norms. Countries must negotiate norms against cyberattacks on energy infrastructure. The UN’s Group of Governmental Experts has attempted to establish such norms, but enforcement is weak. Given North Korea’s prolific hacking and the potential for states to disguise attacks via proxies, norms must be coupled with deterrence. Public–private partnerships should enhance threat detection and response. kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu.

4. Climate‑energy integration. Investment in renewables, storage and demand management should be prioritised to reduce reliance on vulnerable fossil fuels. International cooperation on critical minerals, including recycling and ethical sourcing, can reduce dependence on any single supplier. Removing trade barriers on clean technologies may accelerate adoption. The EU and the U.S. could create a transatlantic climate fund that ties tariff reductions to emissions targets, aligning trade with climate goals.

The success of these proposals depends on trust and reciprocity. If states believe that others will abide by norms, they are more likely to cooperate. Yet trust is in short supply. Building it will require transparency, confidence‑building measures, and perhaps third‑party verification. Without such efforts, the pre‑war energy order may devolve into open conflict.

________________________________________

Epilogue: The Silence Before the Sirens

On the surface, the world appears orderly. Tankers glide across seas, their cargo worth more than gold. Undersea cables hum with data, carrying the lifeblood of finance and communication. Wind farms spin silently, pumping electrons into the grid. Leaders speak at summits about cooperation and energy security. Yet beneath this calm lies a pulse of fear. Every cable is a potential tripwire; every tanker a target; every software update a vector for malware. The term pre‑war energy order captures this uneasy equilibrium: no formal declaration of war, but a persistent sense that one miscalculation could unleash chaos.

The silence before the sirens is not the absence of noise but the hum of cables on the ocean floor, the whirr of pumps in LNG terminals and the quiet click of computer code executing in a hacker’s den. It is the sound of a world preparing for a conflict it refuses to name. The $750 billion energy deal was one such hum—a diplomatic signal disguised as commerce, a spark that could ignite broader tensions. By tying Europe’s fate to American gas and by threatening Russia with ultimatums, the deal blurred the line between trade and war. The sirens have not yet sounded, but the cautionary tales of Nord Stream, Hormuz, the shadow fleet and cyber thefts remind us that the future may not be decided by dramatic declarations but by the unseen vulnerabilities of our interconnected world.

________________________________________

Latest development and quote

As this essay neared completion, developments continued. On July 28, 2025, Reuters reported a rise in oil prices following the announcement of the U.S.-EU energy-and-trade pact and President Trump's shortened deadline for Russia. Market analyst Phil Flynn noted the geopolitical implications: The pact forces Europe to reduce reliance on Russian energy, boosting U.S. producers while pressuring Putin to negotiate. Flynn's analysis exemplifies this essay's core argument: energy agreements are not neutral transactions but tools of power and potential instigators of conflict.

________________________________________

Sources and References

The discussion in this essay is underpinned by a broad range of contemporary news reports, policy briefs and academic analyses published between 2023 and 2025. Keywords are listed here in Harvard style.

Reuters (2024a) ‘EU’s $750 billion energy pledge faces scepticism’. Reuters, 2024. The report explores the proposed EU‑U.S. energy deal and notes that analysts doubt the feasibility of tripling U.S. energy imports to reach the $750 billion target.

Reuters (2024b) ‘US slaps steep tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles and solar panels’. Reuters, September 2024. This article details Washington’s 100% tariff on Chinese EVs and other trade measures that escalated tensions in clean-tech supply chains.

Reuters (2025a) ‘Oil rises 2% on US‑EU trade deal; Trump shortens deadline for Russia’. Reuters, 28 July 2025. This piece reports on the announcement of the EU‑U.S. trade pact and includes analyst Phil Flynn’s observation that Europe will “have to give up a big percentage of everything they’re getting from Russia”, reuters.com.

The Washington Post/Associated Press (2025) ‘Trump gives Russia 10 days to end Ukraine war. The Washington Post, July 2025. This article recounts the ultimatum delivered by U.S. President Donald Trump to his Russian counterpart and situates it within broader trade‑and‑energy negotiations.

Euronews (2025) reported in April that LNG surpassed pipeline gas as the EU's primary source of gas imports, also discussing its environmental impact (euronews.com).

Bruegel's 2024 analysis, "Europe's changing gas mix," examines Norway's displacement of Russia as the EU's top gas supplier and the increased reliance on seaborne imports (bruegel.org).

Clean Energy Wire (2023) ‘Germany builds LNG terminals to cut Russian dependence’. Clean Energy Wire, May 2023. This factsheet explains Germany’s rapid deployment of floating LNG terminals and debates their necessity given long‑term decarbonisation goals, cleanenergywire.org.

Crossdock Insights (2025) ‘Critical minerals and China’s refining dominance’. Cross-Border Insights, March 2025. The briefing notes that China refines the majority of the world’s nickel, lithium, cobalt and copper and discusses Western efforts to diversify supply chains.

International Institute for Strategic Studies (2024) ‘EU provisional tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles’. IISS Strategic Comment, October 2024. This commentary examines the European Commission’s provisional duties on Chinese EVs and the potential for retaliatory tariffs.

RAND Corporation (2025). Protecting critical undersea infrastructure. RAND Commentary, July 2025. The analysis discusses the vulnerability of undersea cables that transmit approximately $9 trillion of trade per day and recommends increased surveillance and patrols.

The Guardian (2023) ‘Nord Stream blasts expose western vulnerability’—The Guardian, October 2023. The article details how the sabotage of Nord Stream pipelines and subsequent drone sightings around oil rigs spurred NATO countries to protect undersea energy and communications infrastructure. theguardian.com.

German Marshall Fund (2025) ‘Grey‑zone incidents in the Baltic Sea’. GMF Policy Brief, January 2025. This brief catalogues damage to Baltic gas pipelines and telecommunications cables in 2023–24 and explores suspicions that commercial vessels from Russian ports were involved.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (2024) ‘World oil transit chokepoints’. EIA, 2024. The report underscores the strategic significance of the Strait of Hormuz, through which about one‑fifth of global oil and LNG trade flows.

United Nations Panel of Experts (2024) ‘Investigation of North Korean cyberattacks’. UN Security Council, Sanctions Committee, 2024. The panel’s findings, reported by Reuters, reveal that Pyongyang’s hacking of cryptocurrency firms raised around $3 billion to fund its weapons program.

Observer Research Foundation (2024) ‘North Korea’s cyber strategy’. ORF Issue Brief, November 2024. The brief analyzes the growth of North Korea’s cyber workforce and its use of digital theft to finance nuclear development.

Regional Energy Report (2025) ‘Turkey’s gas‑hub ambitions’. Regional Energy Analysis, July 2025. The report notes that Turkey’s domestic production covers only 4 % of its gas consumption, while its storage and export capacities fall short of hub status.

Geopolitical Intelligence Services (2025) ‘Russia’s shrinking gas footprint in Europe’. GIS Dossier, February 2025. The dossier charts the collapse of Russian pipeline exports and the rise of U.S. LNG in Europe’s gas mix.

Kleinman Centre for Energy Policy. (2025, May). Subsea sabotage: Implications for energy security. Kleinman Centre Policy Digest. Argues for treating sabotage threats to pipelines and cables as seriously as supply security issues and advocates public-private monitoring arrangements (kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu).

Germán & Co. (2024) ‘Prigozhin’s lesson for Trump & Co: Don’t trust Putin’s promises’. German Toro Ghio Blog, 26 August 2024. This analysis reflects the naivety of trusting authoritarian leaders and is referenced in the abstract as an illustration of the dangers of idealistic approaches to energy geopolitics.

End…

Gratitude is our heartbeat.

Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.

Help us stay loud:

One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.

One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).

Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.

Thank you for keeping the flame alive.

https://x.com/Germantoroghio/status/1915515888515899541

Germán & Co 7/16/25 Germán & Co 7/16/25

Crimson Veins: The Deadly Hunt for Black Gold and Empire…

The Permanence of Crisis: Von der Leyen's Prophetic Insight

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen's observation that crises have become "permanent rather than sporadic" deserves recognition as one of the most important diagnostic insights of our era. The transition from periodic emergency to chronic instability represents a fundamental shift in the nature of international relations—one that Western leadership seems determined to ignore while pretending that traditional crisis management tools remain relevant.

Von der Leyen's statement drew criticism precisely because it forced uncomfortable recognition that the post-Cold War order has collapsed beyond repair. The COVID-19 pandemic, the war in Ukraine, climate disasters, and escalating nuclear tensions with Iran represent not separate crises requiring individual solutions, but symptoms of systemic breakdown demanding entirely new approaches to governance and international cooperation.

The criticism directed at von der Leyen reveals a deeper psychological resistance to acknowledging this new reality. Political leaders and commentators prefer the comfort of assuming that current instability represents a temporary aberration that will eventually return to some imagined normal state. This willful blindness prevents the development of institutions and strategies designed to function effectively under permanent crisis conditions.

Recent diplomatic approaches exemplify this nostalgic thinking. Complex international conflicts are still being approached through deadline diplomacy and economic pressure—tools that might have retained effectiveness during an era of American hegemony but have lost their potency in our multipolar world. Such approaches reflect not strategic thinking but the desperate application of outdated methods to problems requiring entirely new frameworks.

Von der Leyen understood what her critics refused to accept: Europe requires emergency governance capabilities not as temporary measures but as permanent institutional features. Her warning was not alarmism but recognition that the comfortable assumptions of the liberal international order had become dangerous delusions.

“Von der Leyen's Prophetic Warning: How Emergency Governance Became Essential for European Survival…
An Analysis of Permanent Crisis, Failed Diplomacy, and the Art of Strategic Self-Destruction

Gratitude is our heartbeat.

Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.

Help us stay loud:

One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.

One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).

Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.

Thank you for keeping the flame alive.

https://x.com/Germantoroghio/status/1946162669381198178

Av Germán Toro Ghio
Karlstad, Sweden | July 15, 2025

________________________________________

Prologue: The Third Eye and the Nuclear Shadow

In 1956, Cyril Henry Hoskin, a plumber from Devon masquerading as Tibetan monk T. Lobsang Rampa, gifted the world "The Third Eye"—a masterpiece of orientalist fantasy that promised ancient wisdom from the comfort of suburban Weybridge. Sixty-nine years later, in January 2025, Western leadership continues to exhibit the same charming tendency toward grand theatrical announcements backed by knowledge so superficial it wouldn't qualify one to manage a parish fête.

But unlike Hoskin's harmless cultural appropriation, today's geopolitical theater carries the weight of nuclear annihilation. When President Trump announced that Russia had precisely fifty days to reach peace with Ukraine or face "very severe tariffs," the world witnessed more than diplomatic bluster—it observed the dangerous intersection of histrionic personality, strategic incompetence, and weapons capable of ending civilization.

The irony is delicious: threatening sanctions on Russian caviar when both Russia and Iran have endured comprehensive Western sanctions for years is rather like threatening to cancel Christmas for children already told Father Christmas doesn't exist. Yet beneath this absurdist veneer lies a more sinister reality—we are witnessing the systematic collapse of diplomatic norms in an age when such collapse carries existential consequences.

________________________________________

Chapter I: The Montenegro Moment - Anatomy of Histrionic Leadership

To understand how we arrived at the precipice of nuclear catastrophe over Ukrainian territories and Iranian enrichment facilities, one must first examine the personality driving these decisions. In May 2017, at NATO headquarters in Brussels, President Trump provided a perfect crystalline moment of revelation: he physically pushed Montenegro's Prime Minister Dusko Markovic aside to position himself at the front of a group photo.

The incident, captured on camera and broadcast globally, reveals the fundamental psychology at work. Trump placed his hand on Markovic's arm and simply moved him out of the way, then confidently adjusted his suit jacket as he emerged at the front of the group. The body language spoke volumes: here was a man who viewed diplomacy as territorial competition, where physical dominance translated to political victory.

This was no mere breach of protocol—it was a diagnostic moment. The behavior exhibited classic histrionic traits: the compulsive need for attention, the theatrical gestures designed to ensure all cameras captured him in the most prominent position, and most tellingly, the complete disregard for the social norms that govern international relations. When Montenegro's Prime Minister smiled awkwardly and attempted to engage, Trump had already moved on, his attention focused solely on his positioning relative to NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg.

The pattern established in that Brussels moment would replicate itself across every major foreign policy challenge of his presidency: the tendency to treat complex geopolitical relationships as personal dominance contests, the inability to distinguish between showmanship and statecraft, and the dangerous assumption that what works in reality television translates to nuclear diplomacy.

________________________________________

Chapter II: The King of the Party Syndrome - When Histrionics Meet Weapons of Mass Destruction

Individuals who consistently seek to be "the king of the party" often mask deeper psychological vulnerabilities behind their performative confidence. Their need for constant validation, their tendency toward dramatic escalation when attention wanes, and their manipulation of emotional responses in others creates a predictable but dangerous pattern when such personalities gain access to state power.

The histrionic leader views every interaction through the lens of personal performance. They are not seeking optimal outcomes for their constituents or nations—they are seeking maximum dramatic impact. This explains why Trump's foreign policy decisions consistently prioritize spectacle over strategy, announcement over action, and gesture over genuine negotiation.

Consider the trajectory from the Montenegro push to the current nuclear crisis. The same psychological impulse that drove Trump to physically move aside an allied leader now drives him to issue ultimatums to nuclear powers. The scale has changed—from embarrassing a small nation's prime minister to threatening global stability—but the underlying motivation remains constant: the compulsive need to dominate every scenario visually and psychologically.

When such personalities gain control of nuclear arsenals and military alliances, the stakes transform from diplomatic embarrassment to existential threat. The histrionic leader's inability to comprehend consequences beyond their immediate gratification becomes not merely a character flaw but a species-level hazard.

________________________________________

Chapter III: The Crisis Nuclear - When Theatrics Trigger Armageddon

The escalation toward nuclear catastrophe began, as many disasters do, with good intentions poorly executed. Trump's administration, under pressure from Israeli lobbying and domestic political calculations, initially resisted calls for military action against Iranian nuclear facilities. Intelligence suggested Israel was preparing possible strikes, and Trump, displaying his occasionally functional survival instincts, blocked several planned Israeli attacks, preferring to pursue negotiations.

But when diplomatic efforts failed to produce the television-ready breakthroughs Trump required, the pattern reasserted itself. On June 21, 2025, the United States joined Israel in bombing three Iranian nuclear facilities—Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Trump described the operation as "totally obliterated," using language more suited to a wrestling match than nuclear diplomacy.

The immediate consequences revealed the vast chasm between histrionic gesture and strategic reality. Iran suspended all cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), expelling inspectors by July 4. Parliament voted to close the Strait of Hormuz—though economic reality prevented implementation. Most critically, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wrote directly to Vladimir Putin requesting support, triggering emergency meetings in the Kremlin.

Here, according to multiple intelligence sources, the world came closer to nuclear proliferation than at any point since the Cuban Missile Crisis. Iranian officials, facing the destruction of their nuclear program, pressed Russia for immediate transfer of nuclear weapons or rapid acceleration of weapons development. The expression of shock on Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov's face during these emergency consultations—visible in leaked diplomatic photography—reportedly reflected his realization that Trump had crossed a red line even experienced nuclear brinksmanship veterans considered unthinkable.

Russia, for all its authoritarian calculation, possessed what Trump's administration lacked: institutional memory of nuclear near-misses and the sober understanding that nuclear escalation, once begun, follows its own logic independent of political theater. It was likely Russian restraint, not American wisdom, that prevented Iranian nuclear weaponization in the immediate aftermath of the strikes.

________________________________________

Chapter IV: The Israeli Pressure Campaign - Strategic Manipulation of Histrionic Tendencies

Israel's role in escalating the Iranian crisis demonstrates sophisticated understanding of Trump's psychological vulnerabilities. Netanyahu's government recognized that Trump's need for dramatic gesture could be weaponized to serve Israeli strategic interests, even when those interests conflicted with broader American security concerns.

The pressure campaign employed multiple vectors: public flattery designed to appeal to Trump's ego, private warnings about Iranian nuclear capabilities tailored to his fears of appearing weak, and most effectively, the implicit threat that Israel would act unilaterally if America failed to lead. This last element proved particularly effective because it placed Trump in a position where inaction would appear subordinate to a smaller ally's initiatives.

Netanyahu's team understood that Trump could not psychologically tolerate being upstaged by any other leader, particularly on matters relating to military action and decisive leadership. When Israel presented plans for strikes against Iranian facilities, the choice was framed not as a question of strategic wisdom but as a test of American leadership credibility. Would Trump allow Israel to act alone, appearing reactive and secondary, or would he seize the initiative and ensure America led the operation?

The result was entirely predictable to anyone who understood Trump's psychology: he chose the more dramatic option, transforming Israeli pressure into American action, and elevating a regional conflict into a global nuclear crisis. The tragedy is that this outcome was both foreseeable and avoidable, had Trump possessed either the strategic patience to resist manipulation or the institutional support to recognize it.

________________________________________

Chapter V: The Kissinger Paradox - When Chess Masters Watch Checkers Players

Perhaps the most tragic element of current geopolitical dysfunction is the specter of Henry Kissinger's legacy watching over these proceedings. Kissinger, who died in 2023, had been an advisor to Trump for decades while simultaneously maintaining a relationship with Vladimir Putin spanning seventeen meetings over multiple decades. The architect of the greatest diplomatic coup of the 20th century—the separation of China and Russia—had provided both leaders with intimate knowledge of successful great power maneuvering.

Kissinger's original strategy succeeded because it understood a fundamental principle Trump seems incapable of grasping: effective diplomacy requires patience, subtlety, and the willingness to sacrifice immediate gratification for long-term advantage. The Nixon-Kissinger approach to China involved years of careful signaling, backdoor communications, and the gradual construction of mutual benefit scenarios that made cooperation more attractive than continued hostility.

Trump's approach to the same challenge has been the precise inverse: issuing public ultimatums, engaging in economic warfare, and assuming that pressure tactics that might work in real estate negotiations translate effectively to great power politics. The result has been the exact opposite of Kissinger's achievement: rather than separating China and Russia, Trump's policies have driven them into the closest alliance in their modern history.

The irony reaches almost cosmic proportions when one considers that both Putin and Xi Jinping likely understood Kissinger's strategy as well as—if not better than—Trump. They recognized that Trump was attempting a "reverse Nixon" and responded accordingly, deepening their partnership specifically to frustrate American divide-and-conquer tactics. Xi and Putin's declaration that their relationship has reached "the highest level in history" represents not coincidence but calculated response to perceived American manipulation.

________________________________________

Chapter VI: The Permanent Crisis Doctrine - When Emergency Becomes Normality

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen's observation that crises have become "permanent rather than sporadic" deserves recognition as one of the most important diagnostic insights of our era. The transition from periodic emergency to chronic instability represents a fundamental shift in the nature of international relations, yet one that Western leadership seems determined to ignore in favor of pretending that traditional crisis management tools remain relevant.

Von der Leyen's statement drew criticism precisely because it forced uncomfortable recognition that the post-Cold War order has collapsed beyond repair. The COVID pandemic, the Ukrainian war, climate disasters, and now nuclear escalation with Iran represent not separate crises requiring individual solutions but symptoms of systemic breakdown requiring entirely new approaches to governance and international cooperation.

The criticism of von der Leyen reveals the psychological resistance to acknowledging this new reality. Political leaders and commentators prefer the comfort of assuming that current instability represents a temporary aberration that will eventually return to some imagined normal state. This willful blindness prevents the development of institutions and strategies designed to function effectively in permanent crisis conditions.

Trump's fifty-day ultimatum to Russia exemplifies this nostalgic thinking. It assumes that complex international conflicts can be resolved through deadline diplomacy and economic pressure—tools that might have retained some effectiveness in an era of American hegemony but which have lost their potency in our multipolar world. The ultimatum reflects not strategic thinking but the desperate application of outdated methods to problems that require entirely new frameworks.

Von der Leyen understood what her critics refused to accept: Europe required emergency governance capabilities not as temporary measures but as permanent institutional features. Her prophetic warning was not alarmism, but rather a recognition that the comfortable assumptions of the liberal international order had become dangerous delusions.

________________________________________

Chapter VII: The Moscow Offer - Putin's Chess Move and Trump's Susceptibility

Vladimir Putin's apparent offer of Trump Tower Moscow construction rights in exchange for favourable treatment of Russian interests represents perhaps the most sophisticated understanding of Trump's psychology displayed by any foreign leader. The offer demonstrates Putin's recognition that Trump's motivations can be understood and predicted with mathematical precision.

Trump's obsession with building in Moscow dates to 1987—a thirty-eight-year fixation that reveals the depth of his need for validation from global power centres. The fact that he never completed any Russian projects despite decades of effort creates exactly the psychological vulnerability that Putin's offer is designed to exploit: the promise of finally achieving what has always been denied.

The timing of this offer, following the failure of Ukrainian peace negotiations and the increasing Iranian nuclear crisis, suggests careful calculation rather than a spontaneous gesture. Putin understands that Trump's decision-making process prioritises personal gratification over strategic analysis, making him susceptible to offers that combine business opportunity with ego fulfilment.

The broader message implicit in the Moscow offer—"we have more where this came from"—indicates that Russia views Trump not as a strategic adversary but as a manageable asset whose behaviour can be influenced through appeals to his vanity and greed. This represents a devastating assessment of American leadership from one of its primary geopolitical competitors.

________________________________________

Chapter VIII: The Moscow Question - When Curiosity Becomes Catastrophe

The revelation that Trump asked President Zelensky whether Ukraine could bomb Moscow and St. Petersburg if provided with American long-range weapons represents perhaps the most dangerous moment in nuclear diplomacy since the Cuban Missile Crisis. The casual nature of the inquiry—"Volodymyr, can you hit Moscow?... Can you hit St Petersburg too?"—reveals a complete disconnection from the consequences of nuclear escalation.

The White House's response—that Trump was "merely asking a question, not encouraging further killing"—ranks among the most catastrophic failures of crisis communications in diplomatic history. By confirming that the president had indeed inquired about bombing the capitals of a nuclear superpower, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt provided Putin with perfect justification for any future escalation: "The American president was asking about attacking our cities."

This represents far more than a communications error. No professional foreign policy advisor would permit such a question to be asked, and no competent communications team would confirm its occurrence. The fact that both happened suggests either complete institutional breakdown or deliberate strategy to create distraction from some even more damaging domestic revelation.

The timing of this leak—immediately following Trump's fifty-day ultimatum and concurrent with various domestic political pressures—supports the distraction theory. The question itself is so obviously insane that its revelation serves to focus attention on Trump's mental state rather than potentially more damaging information about his compromises with foreign powers or domestic corruption.

________________________________________

Chapter IX: The Danish Debacle - Greenland and the Geography of Absurdity

Trump's renewed obsession with purchasing Greenland provides another window into the psychology driving American foreign policy disasters. While the specific video of Danish parliamentarians laughing at Trump's Greenland comments proved to be doctored, the authentic reactions from Danish officials reveal the genuine international response to American geopolitical theater.

Danish Member of European Parliament Anders Vistisen's suggestion that Trump "f*** off" represents more than diplomatic rudeness—it reflects the breakdown of transatlantic respect that has accompanied Trump's approach to alliance management. When even historically compliant allies respond with public contempt, the erosion of American soft power reaches critical levels.

The broader Greenland episode demonstrates Trump's inability to distinguish between real estate acquisition and territorial sovereignty. His apparent belief that Denmark might be willing to sell a territory larger than Mexico for the right price reveals the same conceptual confusion that leads him to threaten "very severe tariffs" on countries already under comprehensive sanctions.

Most troubling is the pattern these episodes establish: Trump's foreign policy initiatives consistently generate international ridicule rather than respect, weakening American influence precisely when global leadership is most crucial. The Greenland obsession, the caviar sanctions, the fifty-day ultimatum—each represents the application of business logic to problems requiring diplomatic sophistication.

________________________________________

Chapter X: The Nuclear Paradox - Bombing Iran While Building Trump Towers

Perhaps no contradiction in Trump's foreign policy reveals the depth of strategic incoherence more clearly than the simultaneous destruction of Iranian nuclear facilities and the massive expansion of American nuclear power. Within weeks of bombing Iran's nuclear infrastructure in June 2025, Trump signed executive orders designed to "quadruple domestic production of nuclear power within the next 25 years."

The cognitive dissonance is staggering: while justifying attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities as necessary for global security, Trump simultaneously promotes the most aggressive nuclear expansion in American history. The administration has designated AI data centers as "critical defense facilities" and directed the Secretary of Energy to deploy advanced nuclear technology to power AI infrastructure within 30 months.

Most grotesquely symbolic is former Energy Secretary Rick Perry's company Fermi America, which has applied to build "the Donald J. Trump Advanced Energy and Intelligence Campus"—a nuclear complex featuring four one-gigawatt reactors named individually after Trump. The hubris of naming nuclear reactors after oneself while simultaneously bombing other nations' nuclear facilities defies rational explanation.

Trump explicitly rejected any climate targets for AI power generation, stating that power plants "can use whatever fuel they want" and suggesting coal as an emergency backup power source. This represents the complete abandonment of renewable energy initiatives that had gained momentum globally, replaced by a nuclear and fossil fuel strategy designed solely to serve AI development.

The irony deepens when one considers that Microsoft had already announced a 20-year deal to revive the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant to serve AI needs, demonstrating that private companies were already pursuing nuclear solutions without requiring the destruction of international nonproliferation norms.

The administration has identified "winning the global race for AI capabilities as perhaps the most important national security concern," requiring "an unprecedented expansion of energy generation." This justification transforms commercial AI development into a national security imperative requiring emergency powers and regulatory shortcuts.

Westinghouse plans to build 10 large nuclear reactors, with construction set to begin by 2030, representing $75 billion in economic value. Meanwhile, the joint venture Stargate intends to invest $500 billion over four years in AI infrastructure, including data centers co-located with electric generation facilities.

The fundamental contradiction is inescapable: if nuclear technology is so dangerous that Iranian facilities must be bombed to prevent proliferation, how can the same technology be simultaneously promoted as essential for American AI dominance? If nuclear power represents an existential threat requiring military intervention when developed by adversaries, why is it suddenly safe and desirable when serving corporate interests?

As data center energy demand could nearly triple by 2028, accounting for up to 12 percent of total U.S. electricity use, the administration prioritizes corporate energy needs over international stability. The message to the world is clear: nuclear technology is permitted for American corporations but forbidden to sovereign nations that displease Washington.

________________________________________

Chapter XI: The Invisible Oceans - Where Black Gold Meets Nuclear Ambition

Beneath the sands of the Persian Gulf, the Siberian plains, and the beds of the Caspian Sea lie the actual oceans of the 21st century. They are not blue but black, odourless, and dense with strategic weight. These fossil oceans of oil and natural gas shape alliances, trigger wars, and define the hegemony of nations. Iran, with over 208 billion barrels of crude oil and 34 trillion cubic meters of natural gas, is a significant energy colossus. Russia, with 38 trillion cubic meters—the world's largest gas reserves—and over 100 billion barrels of oil, remains a fossil superpower at war.

The failed U.S.-Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities on August 4 was officially aimed at crippling Iran's uranium enrichment infrastructure. But multiple intelligence leaks later revealed the true motivation: satellite imagery had located a vast underground petroleum reservoir beneath the Zagros foothills, newly mapped and estimated to rival some of Saudi Arabia's major fields. The strike, cloaked in nuclear justification, doubled as a strategic energy grab. Washington couldn't find the uranium, but it had found something else—something black, ancient, and far more combustible.

This is the reality behind the theatrical ultimatums and nuclear posturing: this war is fundamentally the war of fuel. Every geopolitical maneuver, every sanction threat, every nuclear escalation ultimately traces back to the control of energy resources. The fifty-day ultimatum to Russia was never about Ukrainian sovereignty—it was about who controls the flow of natural gas to Europe. The Iranian nuclear crisis was never about proliferation—it was about access to untapped petroleum reserves.

________________________________________

Chapter XII: The Phantom Energy - How Sanctions Became Theatre

Since the West imposed sanctions on Russia following its invasion of Ukraine, the dominant narrative has been straightforward: cut off Moscow's energy revenues and isolate its crude from global markets. Yet, the reality of international trade tells a different story: millions of barrels of Russian oil have continued to flow into European and American economies, often disguised, refined, or re-exported through third parties.

India and Turkey are central players in this strategy. They purchase discounted Russian crude, refine it in their industrial complexes, and then export gasoline, diesel, or fuel oil to the United States and Europe without technically violating sanctions. According to multiple investigative reports, over 30 million barrels of petroleum products refined from Russian crude were exported to the United States in 2023, primarily via India.

This practice—technically compliant but ethically dubious—has been dubbed the "energy laundering" of the 21st century. Through this refinery loophole, Western companies are indirectly financing the Russian oil economy, despite formal embargoes on Russian crude. Energy has no flag. It flows where there is demand, transforms where there is capacity, and conceals where there is profit.

Sanctions have obscured the global energy web, but they haven't broken it. If Russian oil reaches consumers through intermediaries, Moscow's energy power continues—fueling not just tanks, but also cars in California and heaters in Berlin. Trump's threats of "very severe tariffs" on Russian caviar represent the perfect metaphor for this absurdist reality: sanctioning luxuries that are already forbidden while the essential commodity—energy—continues to flow through legal gray zones.

________________________________________

Chapter XIII: The Strategic Triangle - China, Iran, Russia and the Architecture of Energy Independence

On the global chessboard, the alliance between China, Iran, and Russia is neither ideological nor formal. It is a strategic interdependence born out of exclusion, necessity, and a shared vision of a less Western-dominated world. Iran, isolated by sanctions, needs capital, technology, and infrastructure to sustain its energy sector. Russia, sanctioned and decoupled from Europe, seeks stable markets for its gas, oil, and coal. China, vulnerable due to its energy dependence, wants suppliers that aren't conditioned by Washington's politics.

The 25-year strategic partnership signed by Iran and China (2021–2046), the Siberia–Manchuria gas pipelines, BRICS+ summits, and collaboration in multilateral forums are tangible expressions of this synergy. China buys Iranian oil despite sanctions. Russia supplies energy to China at discounted prices. Iran serves as an energy, geographic, and ideological bridge between the two.

But Trump's histrionic approach to this challenge has achieved exactly the opposite of Kissinger's original strategy. Rather than separating these powers, his ultimatums and sanctions have driven them into the closest energy alliance in modern history. Xi and Putin's declaration that their relationship has reached "the highest level in history" represents not coincidence but calculated response to American energy warfare.

________________________________________

Chapter XIV: The Earthquake Coincidence - When Nature Provides Editorial Commentary

The geological synchronicity surrounding Trump's fifty-day ultimatum deserves recognition not for any mystical significance but for its perfect metaphorical appropriateness. As New Jersey experienced massive flooding and multiple regions registered seismic activity, the planet appeared to offer its own commentary on human political pretensions.

The simultaneity of natural disaster with diplomatic disaster creates an almost literary irony: while Trump announces instant solutions to intractable conflicts, nature demonstrates the limits of human control through forces that recognize no ultimatums, respect no deadlines, and respond to no sanctions. The floods and earthquakes serve as humbling reminders that some systems operate according to laws immune to political manipulation.

This juxtaposition reveals the fundamental hubris underlying contemporary Western leadership: the assumption that complex systems—whether geological, ecological, or geopolitical—can be controlled through the force of will and dramatic gestures. The reality is that such systems follow their own logic, developing momentum independent of human intention and resisting theatrical intervention.

The earthquake coincidence suggests not cosmic intervention but cosmic indifference—a reminder that while humans create artificial crises through poor decision-making, natural systems continue their processes without regard for political convenience or timeline pressures.

________________________________________

Chapter XV: The Theatre of the Absurd - Spectacle as Substitute for Strategy

What connects T. Lobsang Rampa's fictional Tibet with Trump's foreign policy ultimatums is the triumph of spectacle over substance. Both represent the Western tendency to transform complex realities into emotional entertainment, prioritizing dramatic impact over actual understanding or effective action.

Rampa understood his audience perfectly: Westerners hungry for exotic spirituality but allergic to the actual effort required for genuine spiritual development. Trump demonstrates identical intuition about his domestic audience: Americans who crave international respect and effective leadership but resist the patient work necessary for diplomatic success.

The result in both cases is the same: momentary satisfaction followed by inevitable disappointment as reality reasserts itself against wishful thinking. Rampa's readers eventually discovered that suburban mysticism provides no genuine enlightenment, just as Trump's supporters are discovering that theatrical foreign policy provides no genuine security.

The danger lies not in the individual delusions but in their scaling up to institutional levels. When entire governments begin operating according to reality television logic, the gap between performance and competence becomes a source of systemic vulnerability that adversaries can exploit with devastating effectiveness.

________________________________________

Chapter XVI: Von der Leyen's Vindication - Emergency Governance as European Salvation

The unfolding catastrophe of American foreign policy under Trump validates every aspect of von der Leyen's controversial assessment about permanent crisis. While critics dismissed her observation as defeatist or alarmist, subsequent events have demonstrated that she was not describing a problem but diagnosing a condition that required immediate institutional adaptation.

Von der Leyen understood that Europe faced a fundamental choice: develop emergency governance capabilities designed for permanent instability, or watch traditional institutions crumble under pressures they were never designed to handle. Her critics preferred the comfortable fiction that current crises represented temporary aberrations requiring only patience and traditional responses.

The vindication has been swift and brutal. Trump's nuclear brinksmanship with Iran, his economic warfare against allies, his casual inquiries about bombing Moscow—all demonstrate that America under histrionic leadership has become a source of instability rather than a guarantor of order. Europe can no longer rely on American leadership for security, economic stability, or even basic diplomatic rationality.

Von der Leyen's prophetic warning becomes clearer with each Trump escalation: Europe must develop autonomous capabilities for crisis management, energy security, defense coordination, and economic resilience. The alternative is not temporary discomfort but existential vulnerability to decisions made by leaders who view international relations as personal performance art.

The European Commission's emergency powers, criticized as authoritarian overreach during the pandemic, now appear as essential tools for navigating a world where traditional diplomatic solutions have been replaced by ultimatums, threats, and theatrical gestures. Von der Leyen's institutional innovations were not power grabs but survival mechanisms for a continent caught between American chaos and authoritarian alternatives.

Her brilliance lay not in predicting specific crises, but in recognising that the nature of crises themselves had fundamentally changed. Where previous generations faced periodic emergencies followed by returns to stability, contemporary Europe faces cascading, interconnected crises that require permanent adaptation rather than temporary responses.

________________________________________

Chapter XVII: The Epstein “Revelation - When Domestic Scandals Demand Nuclear Distractions

The most revealing aspect of Trump's casual inquiry about bombing Moscow and St. Petersburg was not the question itself—though it represents perhaps the most dangerous moment in nuclear diplomacy since the Cuban Missile Crisis—but rather its timing. The leak came precisely as the most explosive domestic scandal of Trump's presidency began to unfold: the release of Epstein grand jury testimony.

On July 17, 2025, just days after the "Moscow Question" leak, President Trump authorized Attorney General Pam Bondi to seek the public release of grand jury testimony from Jeffrey Epstein's prosecution. The timing was not coincidental. Hours before Trump's directive, The Wall Street Journal had reported on a sexually suggestive 50th birthday greeting Trump allegedly sent Epstein in 2003, including references to "secrets they shared."

This revelation provides the missing context for understanding why the most strategically dangerous question in modern diplomatic history was deliberately leaked to the press. No professional foreign policy advisor would permit such a question to be asked, and no competent communications team would confirm its occurrence—unless the alternative was something even more politically damaging.

The Epstein files represent what intelligence analysts call a "civilization-ending" intelligence breach—not for national security, but for elite legitimacy. Unlike WikiLeaks or Snowden revelations about state secrets, the Epstein materials contain elite secrets: names, dates, flights, destinations, sealed depositions, whispered crimes. The leak of even a few photos online has already caused disturbances—images of the very people who have shaped, and continue to shape, the future of our lives.

Trump's frantic response to The Wall Street Journal's Epstein reporting revealed the stakes. Referring to himself in the third person, he claimed Rupert Murdoch had agreed to "take care of" the article but lacked authority to overrule the paper's editor. He threatened lawsuits against what he called a "false, malicious and defamatory" report, demonstrating exactly the kind of panic that would drive an administration to leak nuclear secrets as distraction.

Trump's inquiry about bombing Moscow becomes comprehensible when viewed as an algorithmic solution to an impossible political equation. Faced with the imminent release of Epstein materials that could destroy his presidency and potentially trigger constitutional crisis, Trump's team calculated that even the revelation of nuclear recklessness was preferable to sustained focus on elite pedophile networks.

Most tellingly, the Epstein revelation comes as the MAGA movement itself begins to fracture. Speaker Mike Johnson's call for Epstein file release, breaking with Trump, signals that even the president's most loyal allies recognize that some scandals transcend political loyalty. When your political base demands transparency about elite criminal networks, no amount of foreign policy theater can provide sustainable distraction.

The most alarming aspect of this revelation is that it increases the likelihood of nuclear conflict, rather than decreasing it. A president facing potential criminal exposure has diminished incentives for strategic restraint. If the Epstein files threaten to end Trump's political survival anyway, the normal calculations that prevent nuclear escalation—concern for legacy, political future, institutional stability—lose their constraining power.

________________________________________

Epilogue: The Countdown to Irrelevance

As the fifty days tick down toward their inevitable expiration, the world watches a masterclass in strategic self-destruction. Trump's ultimatum will pass unheeded, his threats will prove empty, his gestures will fade into historical footnote status alongside countless other examples of theatrical foreign policy divorced from operational reality.

But the damage extends far beyond any single failed initiative. Each theatrical gesture erodes American credibility, each empty threat weakens future diplomatic leverage, each histrionic display provides adversaries with valuable intelligence about American decision-making processes and psychological vulnerabilities.

The tragedy is not that Trump's foreign policy fails—competent observers predicted such failures from the beginning—but that the failure occurs during a period when effective American leadership could genuinely contribute to global stability. Climate change, nuclear proliferation, economic inequality, technological disruption—all require the kind of patient, sophisticated international cooperation that becomes impossible when one major power's foreign policy operates according to reality television logic.

Von der Leyen's warning about permanent crisis has proved prophetic not because she possessed mystical foresight but because she understood institutional reality better than her critics. Europe needed emergency governance capabilities precisely because the comfortable assumptions of liberal international order had become dangerous delusions.

The earthquake metaphor proves apt: just as seismic activity reflects underlying geological pressures building toward inevitable release, current geopolitical tensions reflect underlying structural changes in the international system that will eventually demand recognition regardless of whether American leadership is prepared to acknowledge them.

The question is not whether the current approach will fail—it has already failed spectacularly. The question is whether American institutions retain sufficient resilience to develop more effective approaches before the consequences of failure become irreversible, and whether European institutions, guided by von der Leyen's emergency governance framework, can provide stability in a world where American leadership has become a source of chaos rather than order.

As New Jersey's floodwaters recede and seismographs around the world return to normal readings, the planet continues its ancient rhythms, indifferent to human deadline diplomacy and theatrical ultimatums. Perhaps there is wisdom in such indifference—a reminder that genuine solutions require the same patience, persistence, and respect for natural limits that characterize geological processes rather than political campaigns.

In the end, the most honest commentary may come not from diplomatic cables or press briefings but from the Earth itself—which responds to political ultimatums with its own seismic reminders that some forces cannot be threatened, cajoled, or sanctioned into submission. The tectonic plates, at least, remain wonderfully immune to fifty-day deadlines.

The countdown to irrelevance proceeds, but perhaps irrelevance is precisely what the world needs: the gentle marginalization of histrionic leadership in favor of the quiet competence that von der Leyen represented—the understanding that true strength lies not in dramatic gesture but in institutional resilience, not in theatrical ultimatums but in patient adaptation to permanent crisis.

As the Epstein materials emerge and international crises escalate simultaneously, the world faces an unprecedented convergence: nuclear weapons controlled by leaders whose primary concern may be avoiding criminal prosecution rather than avoiding nuclear war. This is the darkest possible interpretation of von der Leyen's permanent crisis thesis—not just ongoing emergencies requiring adaptive governance, but the fundamental breakdown of the distinction between personal survival and civilizational survival.

The fifty-day countdown was never about Russian compliance or Iranian nuclear programs. It was about buying time before domestic scandals made foreign policy theater irrelevant. But some revelations cannot be delayed indefinitely, and some scandals cannot be overshadowed by even nuclear brinksmanship.

The clock is ticking toward something far more dangerous than failed ultimatums: the moment when a nuclear-armed leader concludes that personal legal survival requires global chaos. In that moment, von der Leyen's warnings about emergency governance may prove the difference between institutional adaptation and civilizational collapse.

The black oceans beneath the earth will continue to flow according to their logic, indifferent to fifty-day deadlines and immune to nuclear threats. In the end, those who understand energy will control it, and those who merely threaten it will watch their influence evaporate like steam from a broken pipeline.

________________________________________

Written as waters recede in New Jersey and the world holds its breath, waiting to see whether wisdom or catastrophe emerges from the intersection of histrionic leadership, nuclear capability, and elite criminal exposure in the winter of 2025.

________________________________________

Gratitude is our heartbeat.

Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.

Help us stay loud:

One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.

One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).

Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.

Thank you for keeping the flame alive.

https://x.com/Germantoroghio/status/1915515888515899541

Germán & Co 7/13/25 Germán & Co 7/13/25

Dream On i ormens rike: Tillbaka till Christian Falk…

Systemet är inte trasigt – det är en lönsam vinstmaskin
byggd på vår förtvivlan.
Vi cyklar över Fallets rand, akrobater utan nät,
när ekon från ”Dream On” blandas med Trumps skratt:
”Världen vinner. Jag vinner.
Era broar ska vara vackra.”

Men i dimman hörs Falks sista refräng:
”Maskineriet har en orm –
drick inte dess gift.”

Gratitude is our heartbeat.

Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.

Help us stay loud:

One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.

One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).

Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.

Thank you for keeping the flame alive.

https://x.com/Germantoroghio/status/1944339565432451091

Av Germán Toro Ghio, inspirerad av Gustaf Tronarps intervju
Karlstad, Sweden | July 13, 2025

________________________________________

I vansinnet som design

Mina sista år hemsöks av syner—egentligen mardrömmar—om en värld som faller samman. En värld där ett fåtal män tjänar miljarder på sekunder, medan pensionärer i de rikaste länderna i norra Europa rotar i sopor efter pantflaskor. Deras magra bidrag försvinner innan månaden ens har börjat.

Vi lever i en epok där egoismen inte längre betraktas som en privat last utan har institutionaliserats—byggts in som bärande princip i vårt ekonomiska och politiska maskineri. Vansinnet är inte slumpmässigt. Det är designat. Och det är lönsamt.

Medan några få festar på kollapsens ruiner paddlar vi andra genom förtvivlan. Vi klamrar oss fast vid livet som akrobater utan skyddsnät, cruzando el Niágara en bicicleta—vi cyklar över Niagarafallen, som Juan Luis Guerra en gång sjöng, i en absurd balansakt på samhällets yttersta rand.

Och där, mitt i dimman, hörs ett annat eko—en röst som förnekar själva kraschen: Folk säger att världen är trasig. Kaos, säger de. Men låt mig berätta något: världen är inte trasig. Den vinner. Jag vinner.

Donald J. Trump, vår samtids groteska parodi, meddelar triumferande att ekonomin går som tåget och börsen står i rekord. Miljardärer tjänar miljarder—för att de förtjänat det! Klagar du? Då gjorde du dåliga affärer. Skyll dig själv. Vi andra borde bygga broar, inte cykla över vattenfall. Vackra broar, säger han, starka broar, ledarskap utan ormar i maskineriet.

I denna omvända verklighet blir framgång detsamma som dominans, och solidaritet reduceras till svaghet. Och ändå—just i denna skrattspegel av cynism—avslöjas kanske den verkliga galenskapen: inte att världen faller isär, utan att så många tror att det är så här seger ser ut.

________________________________________

Christian Falk träffar Ormen

Mitt i denna absurditet klamrar jag mig fast vid ett skratt som skär igenom mörkret—ett minne av Christian.

En lördagmorgon. Christian kom som alltid: svart hatt, runda glasögon, ett stilla bus i blicken.

"Jag måste kopiera några grejer," sa han.

"Självklart," svarade jag och vinkade mot kontoret.

Två minuter senare hördes ett skrik: "Germán! Det är en orm här inne!"

Jag sprang dit, övertygad om att han skämtade. Men där stod han—Christian—balanserande som en förskräckt flamingo på konferensbordet, pekande mot kopiatorn: "Det är en korallorm! Den har byggt bo i pappersmagasinet!"

Och han hade rätt. Inne i maskinens varma mage låg en verklig, randig, väldigt dåsig liten orm. Jag ringde Luis—vår allt-i-allo i det nicaraguanska projektet—som kom som en lantlig helgonfigur med en käpp, lockade försiktigt ut ormen och återställde lugnet. Först då klev Christian ner från sitt panikläge.

Den där ormen sökte bara värme. Den hade inga ideologier. Inga presskonferenser. Den skrev inga algoritmer, blåste inte upp inflationen, startade inga krig. Den ville bara vila.

Och kanske—Gud hjälpe oss—var den, i dessa oärliga tider, det mest oskyldiga väsendet i rummet.

________________________________________

När svensk musik mötte revolutionen i Nicaragua - Just an Illusion and a frustration…

Som så många andra idealister såg de möjligheten att hjälpa till att skapa en bättre värld. Christian Falk anslöt sig, under paraplyet för det svenska Tältprojektet, till detta solidaritetsprojekt med Nicaragua. Tillsammans med honom kom Björn Afzelius, Mikael Wiehe och hans band Imperiet, samt Gnags från Danmark och Åge Aleksandersen från Norge.

Initiativet drevs på högsta politiska nivå av Pierre Schori, då vice utrikesminister och arkitekten bakom Olof Palmes vision av en bättre värld.

Och kanske—Gud hjälpe oss—var den, i dessa oärliga tider, det mest oskyldiga väsendet i rummet.

________________________________________

Managua 1984 – en stad mellan hopp och förfall

Managua andades fortfarande ekon av den sandinistiska revolutionen som fem år tidigare störtat Somoza-dynastin efter att ha varit skådeplatsen för dess blodigaste strider. Huvudstaden, tillfälligt befriad från det kontrarevolutionära kriget som nu förflyttats till bergen och Atlantkusten, förkroppsligade som ingen annan stad detta historiska ögonblick—svävande mellan revolutionärt hopp och begynnande förslitning.

Privilegierad av sin position mellan två oceaner hade Nicaragua placerat sin huvudstad vid Stilla havet. Managua trotsade alla urbana konventioner: dess centrum, redan oigenkännligt före katastrofen, låg i ruiner sedan jordbävningen den 23 december 1972. Den tragiska natten krävde mer än 10 000 liv—en siffra som bara är en uppskattning, eftersom otaliga kroppar för alltid begravdes under rasmassor.

På höjden som dominerar sjön Xolotlán reste sig Hotel Intercontinental som en ensam överlevare: en vit pyramid från en svunnen modernitet. Granne med Somozas bunker på Loma de Tiscapa hyste denna byggnad märkliga historier—från den excentriske Howard Hughes instängdhet, som flydde i panik efter skalvet för att aldrig återvända, till diktatorns sista intervjuer med utländska korrespondenter.

________________________________________

Stadens förvandling under regntiden

Trots sin råhet förvandlades Managua under regnsäsongen (maj–november). De tropiska skyfall förvandlade staden till en smaragdgrön prärie som, bland ruinerna, destillerade en unik trolldom. Denna frodighet smälte samman med glöden hos tusentals unga sandinister—kvinnor och män, många knappt tonåringar—som översvämmade gatorna med sina uniformer och AK-47:or. Alla delade drömmen om att bygga ett rättvist samhälle, inte bara genom att bryta med fyrtio år av Somoza-diktatur, utan också med ett uråldrigt konservativt korsett. Kvinnorna, tidigare osedda aktörer, framträdde som avgörande gestalter i detta transformativa projekt.

________________________________________

Revolutionens globala magnetism

Den sandinistiska revolutionen utövade en global dragningskraft. På den bipolära spelplanen under kalla kriget såg västerlandet ett farligt expansionistiskt "virus" nära USA, medan Sovjetunionen såg en ingång till Latinamerika. Mellan dessa poler erbjöd den europeiska socialdemokratin—förkroppsligad av den karismatiske Olof Palme—en "tredje väg" . Detta nordiska engagemang, där diplomati och kulturell solidaritet konvergerade, förvandlade Schoris vision till en kör av skandinaviska röster som ekade över revolutionens torg.

Det var i denna laddade atmosfär som svenska artister landade med sina gitarrer och drömmar om att musik kunde bygga broar mellan världar. Tältprojektet blev mer än bara konserter—det blev ett vittnesbörd om en tids hopp och en generations övertygelse att kulturen kunde förändra världen. Och det är många i Nicaragua som kommer ihåg den stora insats som svenskarna gjorde i Nicaraguas kultursektor.

________________________________________

Snart hos Zappa: Krossade speglar och den mänskliga existensen

Han började med Zappa. En annan man som också dog vid 52. Det var ingen slump. Det var en kod. En signal från en kropp på väg bort.

Christian Falks röst, postumt sänd i Sommar i P1, bar spår av allt som aldrig sagts—och ändå blev sagt. I tid. För sista gången. Inte med rop. Inte med smicker. Bara sanning, utandad i takt med en själ som packade sin resväska.

— Jag har bara några saker kvar att fixa. Sen drar jag, sa han.

Diagnosen kom i februari. Bukspottkörtelcancer. Fem månader senare var han borta.

Men döden möttes inte tyst. Trotsigt vibrerade orden, som en ensam basgång under en sprucken melodi. I radioprogrammet återvände han till musiken—den eviga vännen som aldrig svek. Frank Zappa öppnade sändningen. Hans dödsålder blev till ett omen.

— Det verkar som jag snart träffar Zappa, sa han.

Men först måste han berätta. Om mörkret. Och ljuset. Om trappuppgången där han grät som barn. Om mormodern som blev hans livlina. Om modern som ringde från Paris och sa att hon ville dö. Om läraren som hörde något i honom—men som han inte vågade följa. Rädslan att bli en börda vägde tyngre än längtan efter framtiden.

— Jag tackade nej till Adolf Fredriks musikskola. Det hade blivit för mycket för mormor. Det räckte att jag blev förkyld.

________________________________________

De spruckna speglarna

I Julio Cortázars litterära arkitektur reflekterar speglar inte trygga sanningar utan brutna fragment av en verklighet för smärtsam att betrakta hel. När Horacio Oliveira sträcker sina plankor ut i det parisiska tomrummet, när kristallen splittras i tusen skärvor, blottas smärtan bortom intellektuella konstruktioner—naken, utan ironi, utan skydd.

Falk rörde sig genom samma spruckna landskap. Moderniteten har lärt oss att ta skydd i formler, i klichéer som bedövar: "Äntligen fredag"—frasen vi rabblar mekaniskt varje vecka—är, som Christian beskrev den, ett eko från en tom helg, ett hål i tiden där ensamheten väntar, tyst men trogen.

Cortázar visste att människan pendlar mellan två poler: försök att bygga rationella, estetiska, sociala försvar—och ögonblicket då dessa kollapsar inför den existentiella tomheten. Den krossade spegeln i Rayuela är inte bara en metafor. Den är medvetandets bristningspunkt—när vi inser att våra broar till andra är plankor över en avgrund.

Christian Falk var aldrig rädd för att visa det. Han talade om droger. Om pendeltågsresor mot förortens skuggor. Om att vilja dö—men också om att fortfarande vilja leva. Han visste hur det var att sitta i trappuppgången och gråta. Att ropa utan att bli hörd. Att förlora en son. Och—trots allt—fortsätta leta efter tonen, ljuset, förbindelsen.

— Om någon har adressen till det där skyddsnätet, så skicka det gärna till mig, sa han i sitt sommarprogram.

Han visste att ord är speglar. Inte hela, men spruckna. Men i deras sprickor kan något verkligt fortfarande anas.

________________________________________

Avskedet som blev ett löfte

Han avslutade med ett budskap till sina barn:

Till döttrarna Vanessa och Vita: — Älskade döttrar, jag är med er.

Till William, sonen som inte längre var där: — Jag är nära nu. Bara några saker kvar att fixa. Sen kommer jag.

Det var mer än ett avsked—det var ett löfte, viskat genom tidens slöja. En far som talar till sin son bortom dödens gräns, inte för att förklara, inte för att förstå, utan för att älska. Hans ord blev en cortázarsk bön—ett förtvivlat men vackert nej till att släppa taget om mänsklig närhet.

Och i dess svall ekar Carlos Fuentes sorg efter sin son: "La muerte de un joven es la injusticia misma… El amor que nos unió sigue vivo en mi vida." Kärleken lever kvar, sade Fuentes, eftersom den aldrig följer de döda in i tystnaden. Den stannar hos de levande. Falks ord bar samma innebörd—en närvaro genom frånvaron, en ton som dröjer sig kvar.

Han visste att tiden inte helar, men att minnet bär. Han visste att det som finns kvar i en garderob, i en röstinspelning, i en gammal låt inte är dött. Det är beviset på ett spår, en gest, en avtryckt existens.

Den sista musiken från en man vars liv klingade som en anslagen pianosträng: bruten, men levande.

________________________________________

Att börja om i sprickorna

Och kanske är det just där vi måste börja om—i sprickorna. I minnena. I de trasiga speglarna där det fortfarande glimmar till av sanning, av skönhet, av kärlek. För i en värld där ord förlorar sin mening, där makt hyllar vansinnet, där broar ersätts med murar, behöver vi fler röster som vågar tala från djupet av mänsklig erfarenhet. Fler som Christian. Fler som vågar vara trasiga och levande på samma gång.

I denna kaotiska värld—hur många Falk behövs för att vända detta contra sentido? Hur många hjärtan måste ropa ut att det finns en annan väg, en annan musik, ett annat sätt att vara människa?

Kanske är svaret inte ett tal. Kanske är svaret: en enda röst som inte tystnar. Ett enda ackord som vägrar klinga ut.

Gracias Christian…

Gratitude is our heartbeat.

Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.

Help us stay loud:

One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.

One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).

Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.

Thank you for keeping the flame alive.

https://x.com/Germantoroghio/status/1915515888515899541

Germán & Co 6/21/25 Germán & Co 6/21/25

The emperor's "terrible mathematics" - healing vs. destruction…

The Trump Offer: An Empty Gesture in a Loaded Theatre

In this context, Iran’s dismissal of a Trump-era offer—reportedly $30 billion in sanctions relief in exchange for halting 60% uranium enrichment—was not a surprise. It was inevitable.

From Tehran’s perspective, the offer was not an olive branch—it was a slap:

A Fraction of Justice: The $30 billion represented a mere fraction of Iran’s frozen assets—money Iran sees as unjustly seized.
A Legacy of Betrayal: Trump has unilaterally withdrawn from the JCPOA, inflicted devastating sanctions, and ordered the assassination of Qasem Soleimani. Why trust an arsonist with water?
No Guarantees: Iran knows how easily American administrations change course. Without ironclad guarantees (impossible under the U.S. system), any deal could vanish in four years—or four months.
Too Narrow: The offer addressed only uranium enrichment, ignoring deeper grievances—ballistic missiles, regional influence, and the legitimacy of Iran’s regime.

To accept such a deal would be, in the eyes of hardliners, an act of surrender, not diplomacy. It would echo the Shah’s fatal reliance on the United States. And history has taught them what that brings.

War is not our curse—it is our masterpiece. Forged in the furnace of human nature, it is our oldest addiction: coded in our cells, sanctified in our scriptures, romanticized by history. We do not merely wage war—we crave it. And now, its spectre resurrects in tailored suits and digital banners: neo-Nazi ideologies resurrecting blood hierarchies, racial purity, and the siren song of total control. This is not history repeating—it is history reprogramming.

War is not chaos. It is a cruel algorithm.
Like the gut-brain axis, it loops relentlessly: grievance → propaganda → dehumanization → violence → trauma → grievance. Sartre’s “Hell is other people” curdles into “Hell is expendable people.” His existential truth—that we are “condemned to be free”—haunts us. Overwhelmed by liberty’s burden, we flee into the false solace of ideology. War simplifies. It erases nuance. It demands no inner cultivation—only fields to burn.

Yet we are seduced—not by carnage, but by war’s neurochemical alchemy.
Dopamine floods, tribal chants. Cortisol numbs us to suffering. Oxytocin bonds “us” as we sharpen blades against “them.” War lifts Sartre’s weight of freedom, replacing Epicurus’ hard-won ataraxia (tranquillity) with the frozen ecstasy of a finger on the trigger.

But biology whispers rebellion.
The gut-brain axis reveals: harmony is not a fantasy—it is rewritable code. Microbes like Lactobacillus secrete GABA, which helps calm neural storms. Societies, too, can cultivate peace chemistry: libraries as sanctuaries, friendship as a tribal antidote, music and dialogue as social pacemakers. These are not metaphors—they are psychobiotics for the body politic. The Marshall Plan fed former enemies. South Africa’s Truth Commission rewrote the narrative of trauma. Open-source collaboration replaced hoarding. Peace is cultivated, not found.

Peace is achievable, of course, through such honest people…

Gratitude is our heartbeat.

Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.

Help us stay loud:

One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.

One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).

Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.

Thank you for keeping the flame alive.

https://x.com/Germantoroghio/status/1944569733094777087

**All rights reserved by Germán & Co. Reproduction is strictly prohibited.**

Understanding Iran’s Position: A Legacy of Betrayal, Revolution, and Defiance

________________________________________

To begin to understand Iran today—and by extension, much of the world’s current geopolitical disorder—there are two interviews you must witness.

The first is David Frost’s haunting 1980 conversation with the exiled Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, frail and bitter in Panama, abandoned by the very powers that once elevated him. The other is Oriana Fallaci’s fearless 1979 confrontation with Ayatollah Khomeini, in which she tore off the chador he insisted she wear and stared directly into the core of Iran’s new ideological order.

These two encounters—one with a fallen king, the other with a rising theocrat—bookend the violent transformation of Iran from a Western client state into a revolutionary regime. They do more than narrate a power shift. They expose the psychological architecture of modern Iran: one shaped by betrayal, anchored in resistance, and hostile not by whim, but by conviction.

This is why Iran’s present-day posture—its rejection of U.S. overtures, its nuclear brinkmanship, its regional militancy—is not a mystery. It is the expression of a political theology forged in humiliation and hardened by memory.

________________________________________

The Shah’s Exile: A Parable Etched in Pain

Frost’s interview with the Shah is no mere postscript to the Cold War. It is a study in political death. Once celebrated in Washington and London as a moderniser and bulwark against communism, the Shah was swiftly discarded the moment his rule became inconvenient. As the Islamic Revolution roared into being, not a single Western nation offered him lasting asylum. Even the United States—his great patron—closed its doors under pressure from Iran’s new rulers during the hostage crisis.

To the revolutionaries, this was vindication. It confirmed what Khomeini had long preached: that the Shah’s throne stood not on Persian soil, but on the shifting sands of Western approval. When that support was withdrawn, the Peacock Throne crumbled.

For the Islamic Republic, this abandonment remains a formative myth. It teaches that reliance on the West is suicide—that empires are loyal only to power, and will betray even their most obedient vassals when politically expedient. That lesson continues to animate Iran’s strategic calculus: never again trust an international guarantee; never again allow sovereignty to rest on foreign promises.

________________________________________

Fallaci vs. Khomeini: The Ideology Unmasked

If Frost’s interview reveals the trauma of Iran’s past, Fallaci’s reveals the fire of its future. Her 1979 face-off with Khomeini, published with razor-edged clarity, captures the moral architecture of the Islamic Republic in its rawest form.

Fallaci’s fearless line of questioning—culminating in her symbolic refusal to wear the veil—was not just an act of feminist rebellion. It was a confrontation between two civilisations. Khomeini, draped in black, articulated a worldview rooted in divine authority, permanent resistance, and absolute certainty. The West, in his telling, was arrogant, corrupt, and spiritually bankrupt. The revolution, he insisted, was not just for Iran—it was for the world.

Embedded in that interview are the pillars of the regime’s ideology:

Anti-imperialism rebranded as divine duty,
Israel and the U.S. are metaphysical enemies,
Compromise is apostasy,
Resistance as salvation.

These ideas are not rhetorical ornaments. They are doctrinal mandates. To compromise with the “Great Satan” is not merely risky—it is heretical. Fallaci understood this. Her confrontation remains one of the most incisive portraits of political theology ever captured on tape or page.

________________________________________

The Hostage Crisis: The Scar That Shaped a Generation

Then came November 4, 1979.

The seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and the 444-day hostage ordeal that followed did more than rupture diplomacy—it permanently altered the psychological landscape of both nations. In Washington, it shattered illusions of order and impunity. In Tehran, it became the revolution’s crowning act of defiance.

For the U.S., the hostage crisis was barbaric, a violation of sacred diplomatic norms. For Iran’s new rulers, it was a necessary exorcism—the symbolic expulsion of American control. The embassy was no longer a sovereign compound; it was “the Den of Espionage.”

And when the hostages were only released the moment Ronald Reagan took office—replacing the “weak” Carter with a man who projected force—Iran drew a lasting conclusion: the U.S. does not respond to respect; it responds to power.

Thus was born the mutual pathology: America saw Iran as irrational, lawless, and ideological. Iran saw America as duplicitous, vengeful, and exploitable through calibrated confrontation.

________________________________________

A Nation Divided: The People vs. the State

But Iran is not a monolith.

Its people are far more complex, vibrant, and diverse than its regime. The revolution of 1979 began as a broad uprising—liberals, Islamists, socialists, nationalists—against dictatorship. But it was the clerics who seized the aftermath.

Since then, popular discontent has erupted again and again:

The student protests of 1999,
The Green Movement of 2009,
The economic uprisings of 2017 and 2019,
And the women-led revolution of 2022–23.

Each wave has carried echoes of secularism, nationalism, and a yearning to rejoin the global community. Yet the regime has endured through repression, surveillance, and a shrewd manipulation of foreign threats to consolidate power. Every Israeli missile strike, every American sanction, is spun into a justification for internal control.

That is why diplomatic overtures must be viewed through a double lens: not only can they help the state, but will they empower dissent? Will they erode the regime’s claim to legitimacy?

________________________________________

The Trump Offer: An Empty Gesture in a Loaded Theatre

In this context, Iran’s dismissal of a Trump-era offer—reportedly $30 billion in sanctions relief in exchange for halting 60% uranium enrichment—was not a surprise. It was inevitable.

From Tehran’s perspective, the offer was not an olive branch—it was a slap:

A Fraction of Justice: The $30 billion represented a mere fraction of Iran’s frozen assets—money Iran sees as unjustly seized.
A Legacy of Betrayal: Trump has unilaterally withdrawn from the JCPOA, inflicted devastating sanctions, and ordered the assassination of Qasem Soleimani. Why trust an arsonist with water?
No Guarantees: Iran knows how easily American administrations change course. Without ironclad guarantees (impossible under the U.S. system), any deal could vanish in four years—or four months.
Too Narrow: The offer addressed only uranium enrichment, ignoring deeper grievances—ballistic missiles, regional influence, and the legitimacy of Iran’s regime.

To accept such a deal would be, in the eyes of hardliners, an act of surrender—not diplomacy. It would echo the Shah’s fatal reliance on Washington. And history has taught them what that brings.

________________________________________

Power, Dignity, and the Politics of Memory

Iranian leaders do not merely negotiate—they remember.

They remember the Shah’s exile.
They remember the Embassy siege.
They remember sanctions, sabotage, assassinations, and betrayals.
They remember Fallaci’s defiance and Frost’s melancholy.
They remember being cast as pariahs, even when they complied.

And so they demand not just deals, but dignity.
Not just money, but memory restored.
Not just leverage, but recognition—as a regional power, as a sovereign actor, as a state that will not kneel.

This is why understanding Iran’s position is not about agreeing with it. It is about understanding that beneath every rejection lies a scar, and behind every negotiation, a ghost.

Even the fiercest of allies know this.
Even Benjamin Netanyahu—long the architect of pressure campaigns against Iran—knows betrayal is possible.
He has seen empires change course.
He knows that in this region, trust is never permanent, and memory never dies.

By Germán & Co.
Karlstad, Sweden | July 14, 2025

________________________________________

Introduction: The Terrible Mathematics Fulfilled

In January 2024, when sirens had yet to wail and algorithms had yet to calculate ballistic trajectories, Germán Toro Ghio—recognized by the North American platform Energy Central as a 2023 Top Voice in energy and political analysis—wrote on www.germantoroghio.com:

"The intention to trigger a worldwide conflict should be readily apparent..."

We warned about surprise attacks that reshape history: from the Trojan Horse to Pearl Harbor, from 9/11 to COVID-19. We predicted Hamas understood the repercussions of its actions; that ultra-fundamentalist groups were secretly planning to "ignite an unprecedented regional or global conflict".

(Somewhere in Gaza, a child who drew planes on a wall now hears real planes. The difference is these are not drawings.)

Today, as the world teeters on the edge of the nuclear abyss, those predictions materialize with nightmare precision. The Emperor chose not to heal—he chose the "terrible mathematics" of power: that sinister equation where healing takes generations, but destruction takes minutes.

This essay, written when hope was still possible, now reads like an autopsy of the future. Because the terrible mathematics of power always adds up to the same result: ZERO.

[Original article: "The intention to trigger a worldwide conflict should be readily apparent..." — Germán & Co, January 28, 2024]

________________________________________

Abstract

The Emperor Without a Throne, or The Empire No Longer Imposes Silence, but listen—listen, because summaries are lies we tell ourselves at diplomatic cocktail parties—this essay is about the precise moment the emperor realises his voice echoes in an empty cathedral. It’s about Trump’s fevered monologues, Putin’s chess moves played in slow motion, and China’s silence that speaks louder than artillery. We are witnessing the collapse of the imperial theatre, and the audience has learned to laugh at the wrong moments.

These reflections interrogate the transformation of global power in the era of ubiquitous communication, disinformation wars, and the collapse of imperial mythologies. It analyses the decline of American exceptionalism, the performative nature of modern geopolitics, and the psychological algorithms of war, drawing connections from Trump’s vanity diplomacy to Lavrov’s veiled nuclear threats. The essay also reflects on President Vladimir Putin’s extended meeting with international journalists in Moscow, where he outlined a post-Western vision for global governance, rejecting U.S.-centric narratives and promoting a multipolar order based on state sovereignty, cultural autonomy, and geopolitical reciprocity. His multi-hour dialogue, unprecedented in transparency and tone, was not just an assertion of power but a deliberate recalibration of narrative authority. While Western media remains obsessed with spectacle, the Kremlin courts foreign correspondents as architects of a new ideological map, seeking to recast Russia not as aggressor but as bulwark against Western hegemony.

At the heart of this essay lies a crucial claim: the central crisis of our time stems from a catastrophic miscalculation by President Donald Trump, whose erratic trade wars, tactical provocations, and impulsive diplomacy failed to recognise the new configuration of world power. The clash between Iran, Israel, the U.S., Russia, and China is no longer about conventional war but about control of global legitimacy, energy routes, and technological supremacy. Trump’s approach not only destabilised traditional alliances—especially in Europe—but also catalysed authoritarian convergence among his supposed adversaries. His tariffs alienated allies while North Korea quietly armed Russia, and today, according to Swedish press reports, 30 million grenades are en route to Ukraine’s border.

Amid these changes, the betrayed hopes of the Venezuelan exile—especially after Trump’s election—serve as a tragic reminder of how fossil fuel reserves and ambitions over rare earth elements override human dignity. The suffering of millions displaced has become a footnote in a demented war for electric supremacy. As Juan Luis Guerra once sang, “crossing Niagara on a bicycle”—a metaphor for fragile hope in the face of the impossible. His lyrics evoke not only the surreal balance of survival but also the exhaustion of populations trapped in systemic crises: medicine shortages, bureaucratic cruelty, the absurd dance of exile. The song resonates today as entire nations teeter on the brink of collapse, invisible to those waging wars over lithium and cobalt.

With references ranging from Epicurus to Sartre, and from Gandhi to Snowden, this text critiques the algorithmic allure of conflict and proposes an alternative grounded in radical empathy. It aims to contribute to ongoing conversations about the post-imperial global order, the digital fragmentation of diplomacy, and the moral limitations of transactional leadership.

________________________________________

I. The Last Monologue

"I could fix the world in 24 hours."

(The emperor adjusts his tie. Somewhere in Caracas, a child draws planes on a concrete wall. In Buenos Aires, someone reads this and wonders if it matters.)

Twenty-four hours to fix all illness of the world—or create a rain of nuclear inferno.

Twenty-four hours. As if the world were a broken refrigerator, as if geopolitics were a plumbing problem solvable with the right wrench and enough arrogance. But here's the emperor's terrible math: healing takes generations, destruction takes minutes. You can't cure cancer in 24 hours, but you can turn children into shadows on walls in 24 seconds. But empires don’t collapse in 24 hours—they take centuries to die, like enormous whales beaching themselves on the shores of their contradictions.

The emperor speaks to the cameras, but the cameras now belong to everyone. Every phone is a rebellion. Every live stream is a witness. The monologue shatters against ten billion screens, each one asking: Who permitted you to speak for us?

(What if the emperor, in the end, is asking himself the same question?)

________________________________________

II. The Birth of Imperial Sound: From Gunboats to Radio

Once upon a time (but when was that time, really?), The empire travelled by ship. Heavy, slow, inevitable. Colonisers brought brass bands, bureaucrats, Bibles and bullets. They erected radio towers like crosses on conquered hills.

Gandhi understood it first: power is performance. So he performed differently—silence where they expected speeches, spinning wheels where they expected submission. The Salt March wasn’t just a protest; it was a counter-programming effort. While the British Empire broadcast authority, Gandhi broadcast dignity.

(In the café where I write this, a woman argues with her ex-husband on WhatsApp. Her thumb moves like a weapon. Now everything is transmission.)

But Gandhi knew something we have forgotten: that silence is also a language. That resistance can be as simple as refusing to participate in the conversation that power wants to impose.

________________________________________

III. The White Elephant: A Dying Spectacle

The American empire has become what Thais call a white elephant—too sacred to abandon, too expensive to maintain. It stumbles through the world like a drunken millionaire, throwing money at problems it helped create, demanding gratitude for solutions that solve nothing.

Trump’s "24-hour" fantasy isn’t strategy—it’s the last gasp of a dying theatrical tradition. However, the audience has learned to read between the lines. They know the emperor’s promises are written in disappearing ink.

(My grandmother used to say: "Never trust a man who hugs you while looking over your shoulder.")

The white elephant walks, but each step sinks it deeper into the mud of its own impossibility.

________________________________________

IV. Modi’s Embrace: Irony as Strategy

Imagine this: Modi and Trump embracing at some gilded summit, cameras clicking like insects. But Modi’s smile carries the weight of history—the colonised man who learned to play the coloniser’s game better than the coloniser himself.

Today’s India is not America’s disciple. It is its ironic friend, the kind that laughs at your jokes while secretly pitying your delusions. Modi speaks with BRICS in the morning, courts Washington in the afternoon, and invests in yuan diplomacy at midnight. He isn’t choosing sides—he’s choosing to survive.

There’s something beautiful in this silent betrayal. Modi uses the words the empire wants to hear while building a world the empire cannot control.

________________________________________

V. Internet vs. Empire: A Chorus of Witnesses

The emperor no longer speaks alone. He cannot speak alone. He will not be allowed to speak alone.

Gaza live-streams its own siege. TikTok teens mock every presidential blunder with surgical precision. Displaced voices find each other across oceans, weaving solidarity networks that mock the old geography of power.

Mass communication doesn’t just fragment authority—it vaporizes it. Every citizen is now a correspondent, every phone a newsroom, every tweet a potential revolution. The imperial monologue dissolves into a planetary conversation the emperor cannot control.

(But what happens when the conversation becomes so noisy no one can hear the truth?)

________________________________________

VI. AI and Surveillance: The Algorithmic Crown

But wait—the plot thickens, as plots always thicken.

Power adapts. If it cannot control the conversation, it learns to predict it. If it cannot silence voices, it learns to manipulate them. The throne is now digital, invisible, and algorithmic.

Snowden showed us the truth: the empire doesn’t just command—it listens. To everything. Your searches, your purchases, your 3 AM googled anxieties. The surveillance state doesn’t wear military boots; it wears the friendly face of a search engine asking, Did you mean...?

The crown is now made of code. And it’s heavier than gold.

But here’s the trick: algorithms learn from us. We are the ones teaching the machines to control us. Every click is a vote for our own enslavement.

________________________________________

VII. Russia’s Reframing: The Kremlin’s Narrative Renaissance

Putin’s live dialogue with foreign journalists—did you see it? Did you see it? Not the headlines, not the clips, but the actual performance?

He sat there, almost grandfatherly, dismantling the American world order with the patience of a chess master who knows the game is already won. No shouting, no theatrics. Just the quiet confidence of someone who has realised empires don’t die from external attacks but from internal exhaustion.

Lavrov’s nuclear warnings weren’t threats—they were stage directions. Putin’s whispered certainty was the real weapon. They aren’t just challenging American power; they’re rewriting the entire script.

Putin speaks like someone who has already seen the movie’s ending. And perhaps he has.

But here's where the plot becomes truly Borgesian—the Kremlin’s sublime blackmail, whispered through diplomatic channels like a fever dream: *A Trump Tower in Moscow. Miss Russia herself. All yours, Donald. Just give us Ukraine.*

The emperor’s weakness isn’t ideology—it’s vanity. Putin understands this with the precision of a psychoanalyst who's spent decades studying his patient's dreams. The offer isn't political; it's pornographic. Not conquest, but seduction. Not war, but the promise of golden toilets and beauty queens in a city where winter never ends.

(Somewhere in Kyiv, a child draws different planes on different walls. The difference is that these planes are real, and they're coming.)

________________________________________

VIII. China: The Strategic Shadow

China plays an active and silent role, like a Chinese shadow.

Beijing watches from the sidelines as America and Russia perform their noisy drama centre stage. But the real action happens in the shadows—infrastructure deals in Africa, currency swaps in the Gulf, satellite networks spreading across Asia like digital silk roads.

China’s strength lies not in spectacle but in strategic opacity. While empires shout, China edits the subtitles. While others make threats, China makes itself indispensable.

The masterstroke: letting everyone else exhaust themselves with performance while you silently rearrange the furniture.

China doesn’t want to be the next empire. It aims to be the last capitalist in a world where capitalism is no longer viable.

________________________________________

IX. Venezuelan Exiles: Footnotes in a Lithium War

Somewhere in this great geopolitical chess game, millions of Venezuelans exist as footnotes. Not people—footnotes. Their displacement is reduced to logistical problems, their suffering measured in rare earth minerals and cobalt reserves.

Juan Luis Guerra sang about crossing Niagara Falls on a bicycle—impossible, absurd, desperate. That is the Venezuelan tragedy: forced to attempt the impossible while the world argues over who owns the water.

(I know a woman from Caracas who carries photos of her country on her phone like relics. "Venezuela," she says, "now only exists in memory.")

These crises aren’t natural disasters. They are the engineers of a power that has forgotten its humanity.

________________________________________

X. Radical Empathy: Beyond Transactional Leadership

Power must evolve or dissolve—there is no middle ground left.

From Epicurus to Sartre, philosophy has warned us that domination as a virtue is the beginning of all tragedy. Trump’s 24-hour peace fantasy proves the point—speed without care produces collapse, and solutions without empathy create new problems.

Genuine leadership must slow down, listen, remember its duty is not glory but to protect. The emperor must learn to serve, or abdicate.

But here’s the question no one wants to ask: What if power, by its very nature, corrupts empathy? What if the only way to change the system is to destroy it?

________________________________________

XI. The Throne Crumbles into Echoes

The emperor remains, but the throne—once elevated above the crowd—is now surrounded by ten billion witnesses, each with a camera, each with a voice, each with the power to say: *"We saw what you did."*

Today’s audiences don’t applaud blindly. They watch, challenge, remix, and resist. They fact-check in real time. They remember what you said yesterday, last year, last decade.

The monologue is broken. The future will be co-written by voices once silenced, now amplified by the very technology meant to control them.

The empire still performs, but no longer alone. The conversation has become planetary, and the emperor’s voice is just one among billions.

The throne crumbles not from external attack, but from the weight of its contradictions, echoing in chambers that no longer listen.

(And perhaps, somewhere, a child in Caracas finishes drawing his plane on the wall and wonders if one day he might fly.)

________________________________________

Epilogue: The Clock Strikes Zero

...The throne crumbles not from external attack, but under the atomic weight of its own contradictions. And in this very hour—as Lavrov stands frozen in Phnom Penh under the hypnotic observation of Maria Zakharova (Kremlin’s Medusa, her gaze turning hope to stone)—the terrible mathematics achieve their final sum.

Tonight’s Epilogue:
40,000 North Korean shells slither toward Kursk.
Tehran’s envoys leak Mar-a-Lago’s coordinates to dark-web auctioneers.
Micro-drones map the golf course’s 18th hole.
Yet Trump—sweating through his makeup, afraid—still believes he can flip Tehran with a threat. Truly believes. As if the Islamic Republic were an Atlantic City casino deed to seize. He is totally prepared to betray Israel to get it.
The same illusion which Putin sold him:
"Power is not duty—
It is a golden toilet.
Alliances? Flush it away."
Meanwhile, in Rome:
Meloni’s voice cuts through the static: "Words will never fix this conflict." She builds walls where bridges burned. Kissinger labels it "the belligerent job"—but the bunkers are sold out.
Final Frame:
The emperor without a throne
stares at his palm
and finds it
stained
with the ink of betrayed covenants.
We chose minutes over generations.
Trump chose toilets over treaties.
Zero...
...is the only deal he closed.

Gratitude is our heartbeat.

Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.

Help us stay loud:

One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.

One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).

Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.

Thank you for keeping the flame alive.

https://x.com/Germantoroghio/status/1915515888515899541

Germán & Co 5/23/25 Germán & Co 5/23/25

America’s Clean-Energy Abdication — A Critical Investigation…

JP Morgan has issued a warning about the risk of stagflation in the U.S. economy. Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, recently expressed his concerns regarding this potential issue. Stagflation is marked by stagnant economic growth alongside high inflation. Dimon emphasized several significant risks contributing to this concern, including geopolitical tensions, large deficits, and ongoing price pressures.

Additionally, concerns over political instability in the energy sector have now become a reality. In the spring of 2025, after returning to the Oval Office, President Donald J. Trump dismantled the fragile consensus that had been guiding the U.S. toward a cleaner energy future.

Life is beautiful…

Simultaneously, JP Morgan issues a warning about stagflation in the U.S. today. Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, has recently expressed concerns about the potential risk of stagflation in the U.S. economy. Stagflation is characterized by a combination of stagnant demand and high inflation. Dimon highlighted several significant risks contributing to this concern, including geopolitical tensions, substantial deficits, and persistent price pressures.

Yesterday's concerns about political turmoil for energy companies have now materialized. In the spring of 2025, upon reclaiming the Oval Office, President Donald J. Trump dismantled the delicate consensus that had guided America toward a cleaner future. Through sweeping executive orders and confidential memoranda, he reversed decades of progress, re-embracing oil, coal, and gas while dismissing renewable energy as unviable.

Dimon's warnings come at a time when the U.S. is facing considerable economic challenges. Despite a temporary reduction in tariffs between the U.S. and China, which had led some institutions, including JPMorgan, to lower their forecasts for a recession in 2025, anxieties about inflation and economic stagnation persist. The Federal Reserve has maintained interest rates steady, adopting a "wait-and-see" approach to future adjustments, which reflects the cautious economic outlook.

Drilling rigs roar back into operation, and smokestacks pierce the twilight, marking a national retreat from wind turbines and solar farms. Once a leader in green innovation, the U.S. now relinquishes its moral authority and competitive advantage, undermining manufacturing, empowering adversaries, and accelerating global warming. The repercussions are felt in the Texas shale fields, the Arctic ice, Detroit factories, and Beijing boardrooms.

The complexity of stagflation lies in its resistance to conventional economic measures. Efforts to combat inflation can exacerbate economic slowdowns, while attempts to stimulate growth can further fuel inflation. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell underscored this dilemma, warning that sweeping import tariffs could potentially lead to stagflation.

This reckoning is measured in barrels of oil and tons of carbon, shattered trust, and abandoned ideals. America’s strategic gamble places the nation and our planet on a precarious edge. In summary, Dimon's warnings reflect broader concerns about the U.S.'s economic trajectory, emphasizing the need for careful navigation of the current economic landscape to mitigate the risks of stagflation.

Gratitude is our heartbeat.

Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.

Help us stay loud:

One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.

One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).

Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.

Thank you for keeping the flame alive.

https://x.com/Germantoroghio/status/1925648579575636326

By Germán & Co.
Karlstad, Sweden | May 23, 2025

________________________________________

Prologue

Yesterday, we wrote about how politicians create a nightmare of uncertainty for energy corporations. Today, that nightmare has taken physical form. In the spring of 2025, President Donald J. Trump—having stormed back into the Oval Office—tore asunder the fragile consensus that once bound the nation to a cleaner, greener future. With sweeping executive orders and midnight memoranda, he shattered decades of progress and declared America’s devotion to oil, coal, and gas unassailable.

Gone were the lofty pledges to harness the wind, chase the sun, and heal a wounded planet; instead, he proclaimed the clean-energy race unwinnable, its finish line forfeited to foreign rivals. As drilling rigs roared back to life and smokestacks belched their defiance into twilight skies, the earth trembled at this reversal's echo. The United States, once the vanguard of renewable innovation, has willingly abdicated its moral authority and strategic advantage on the global stage.

These reflections plunge into the heart of that fateful choice, mapping the shockwaves that ripple from the shale fields of Texas to the assembly lines of Detroit, from the melting ice of the Arctic to the corridors of power in Beijing and Moscow. It reveals how this abandonment of climate ambition has hollowed out America’s manufacturing base, emboldened adversaries to tighten their grip on future energy markets, and accelerated the march toward catastrophic warming. Perhaps this bad decision is extravagant enough to be considered a formidable luxury jet as a gift. Well, that’s life…

Here is a reckoning of strategy and consequence, where the fallout is measured not only in barrels of oil or tons of carbon, but in shattered trust, forsaken innovation, and the unravelling of the ideals that once defined the American promise. The stakes have never been higher, for in this crucible of policy and power, the fate of a nation and a fragile Earth hangs in the balance.

________________________________________

I. The Moment of Reckoning: From All-You-Can-Eat Buffet to All-In on Fossil Fuels

Policy Pivot

Beneath the facade of a broad "all-of-the-above" energy strategy during Trump's first term was a clear hierarchy of priorities. While the administration presented every energy source—from mountaintop-removing coal to emerging floating offshore wind—equally welcome, the reality was different. Its sharply focused deregulatory agenda and the symbolic withdrawal from the Paris Agreement made it clear: fossil fuels would always take precedence. We have documented this issue with concrete and undeniable facts, demonstrating that the results have been the opposite of what was intended.

Yet that half-hearted plurality now gives way to zealotry. Within days of his return to the presidency, Trump dispatched a flurry of executive orders designed not merely to slow the momentum of clean energy but to arrest it entirely. Where Biden had leaned on federal purchasing power—directing agencies to buy electric vehicles, heat pumps, and domestically manufactured solar panels—the new administration saw only “market distortion.” Those mandates were revoked, replaced by blanket waivers that drove procurement back toward diesel-guzzling trucks and gas-fired boilers.

Perhaps most telling is the fate of the Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office. Once the unsung engine of America’s cleantech revolution, the LPO funnelled billions into fledgling innovators—companies turning carbon into stone, startups perfecting next-generation battery chemistries, and pioneers of small modular reactors. By suspending new grants, the administration effectively slammed the door on a pipeline of ideas that might have matured into global champions. Hundreds of engineers, investors, and entrepreneurs now watch their timetables unravel, their business models rendered untenable without patient, mission-driven capital.

Even more draconian was the shuttering of the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations. Established only months earlier to shepherd high-risk, high-reward pilots—from grid-scale storage arrays to hydrogen-fuel-cell hubs—this office embodied the conviction that government could catalyze breakthroughs too hard to finance purely on private balance sheets. Its closure strands dozens of projects in bureaucratic purgatory: community microgrids awaiting approval, pilot plants awaiting permits, research collaborations awaiting final funding agreements. Without a champion in Washington, they will wither or be repurposed into conventional fossil-fuel facilities by more sympathetic state or local actors.

The cumulative message is crystal clear: renewables are not merely downgraded but disavowed. Once the United States teetered on a path toward balanced energy diversification, it has strayed back into the heart of the carbon economy. In practical terms, this means:

Capital flight from innovation. Venture funds and corporate R&D budgets will skew decisively toward enhanced oil recovery, unconventional gas extraction, and next-generation fracking technologies—areas where regulatory walls are being torn down rather than built up.
Supply-chain bifurcation. American manufacturers of solar panels, wind-turbine components, and battery cells face a market with no domestic anchor; overseas competitors in Asia and Europe will fill the void, securing contracts that might once have been “Buy American” staples.
Geostrategic retrenchment. By retreating from the clean-tech frontier, the U.S. cedes leadership in critical minerals processing, electric-vehicle infrastructure, and advanced nuclear, and with it the alliances forged around shared decarbonization goals. Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative now marches unopposed into the markets of Africa and Latin America, pitching gas-to-power as the bridge fuel and exporting Chinese wind and solar solutions with subsidies that American firms can no longer match.
Regulatory signalling. International investors take heed: if the world’s biggest market can be flipped on a whim, why accept risk in any other jurisdiction? Credit spreads on renewable-energy bonds will widen, the cost of capital will climb, and only the most risk-averse portfolios—ironically, those still tied to coal or gas royalties—will remain functional.

What was once a symbolic tilt toward hydrocarbons has hardened into a full-blown retreat from the energy future. The keystone agencies that once lent structure and support to America’s clean-energy ecosystem have been hollowed out, their staffs demoralised, their budgets slashed. The message to innovators is inescapable: build your tomorrow elsewhere, or build nothing at all. And while global competitors stride forward—banking billions in green investments, ratcheting down emissions, and weaving decarbonization into the fabric of their foreign-policy agendas—Washington’s halls grow quiet, the machinery of innovation rusts, and the world wonders whether the United States has forfeited not just a few years, but an entire generation of climate leadership.

________________________________________

Budgetary Cuts

Federal R&D funding for solar and battery research was slashed by over 40% in the FY 2026 budget, while fossil-fuel research—from carbon-capture prototypes to unconventional drilling—received historic boosts.

________________________________________

Regulatory Rollbacks

The Clean Power Plan, already struck down by the courts in 2022, was replaced by watered-down rules that permit existing coal plants to operate indefinitely without carbon controls.

This transformation is not mere bureaucratic tinkering but a declaration that the United States will no longer compete in markets where it does not already hold sway.

________________________________________

II. The Geopolitical Bet: Why Foreign Winners Multiply

China’s Supply-Chain Supremacy

Over the past decade, Beijing invested an estimated $200 billion in clean-energy manufacturing, cultivating a fully integrated chain from polysilicon to end-of-life recycling. Today, Chinese firms control 80–90% of global solar module capacity, accounting for nearly two-thirds of lithium-ion battery production.

Trump’s withdrawal from green incentives leaves U.S. consumers reliant on imports: EU customs data show that solar panels entering the bloc are over 70% Chinese-made, a number set to rise further in the U.S. market.

________________________________________

European Green Industrial Strategy

Brussels has countered China’s ascent with the European Green Deal and Critical Raw Materials Act, making multi-billion-euro investments in onshore battery gigafactories and strategic mineral processing. With Washington abdicating, Europe emerges as the West’s cleantech champion.

________________________________________

South Asia and Latin America as New Frontiers

Indian and Brazilian governments, seizing the opportunity, have rolled out tax holidays and land-at-cost policies for solar and wind developers, attracting project commitments totalling over $60 billion since 2024. Absent U.S. competition, these regions will host the next generation of green infrastructure.

________________________________________

III. Economic Fallout: Jobs, Exports, and Innovation at Risk

Manufacturing Exodus

In 2024, the U.S. had 75 operational battery facilities under construction or planned, nearly half in states that swung for Trump in 2020. With IRA credits at risk, dozens of projects have been paused or relocated to Mexico, Poland, and South Korea.

________________________________________

Intellectual Property Flight

Dozens of pioneering startups—once backed by ARPA-E grants—are now flirting with acquisition by foreign corporations seeking U.S. technology at fire-sale prices. This patent haemorrhage could cost the American economy $15 billion in future licensing revenues.

________________________________________

Trade Deficits Worsen

The U.S. clean-energy trade deficit ballooned to $30 billion in 2024 alone. Without a domestic production base to offset imports, Washington’s strategy amounts to writing a blank check to Beijing’s state-backed industrial champions.

________________________________________

IV. Environmental and Security Risks: Betting on a Sinking Boat

Climate Acceleration

By prolonging coal and gas reliance, U.S. emissions—already up 8% since 2020—will rebound sharply, jeopardizing global targets for limiting warming to 1.5°C. The administration’s Department of Energy projects that U.S. CO₂ output will exceed 6 billion tonnes under current policies by 2030.

________________________________________

National Security Implications

Dependence on foreign clean-energy hardware exposes U.S. critical infrastructure to supply-chain disruptions and potential sabotage. Grid upgrades, slated to integrate smart inverters and battery storage, will instead rely on components designed and manufactured under Beijing’s regulatory reach.

________________________________________

Energy Access and Diplomacy

By alienating allies who view decarbonization as strategic, the U.S. forfeits moral leadership at key forums—COP summits, G7, APEC—undermining broader coalitions to sanction Russia and Iran or to stabilize fragile states through low-carbon development aid.

________________________________________

V. The Intra-GOP Divide: Carbon Conservatives vs. Pragmatists

While the administration rails against clean-energy subsidies as a gift to China, a pragmatic wing of the Republican Party presses for targeted reforms:

Content Restrictions vs. Market Signals

Some GOP senators have proposed tightening foreign-content rules on the IRA credits rather than repealing them. This would preserve U.S. mining, refining, and manufacturing incentives while blocking China-dominated inputs.

________________________________________

Rural and Rust-Belt Resilience

Ohio, Georgia, and Texas communities have staked their municipal fortunes on clean-energy parks. Local leaders warn that slashing credits will trigger bankruptcies, pension shortfalls, and revenue collapses in jurisdictions already reeling from post-industrial decline.

________________________________________

Defense-Energy Nexus

Figures like former Secretary of Defense James Mattis have argued that energy independence requires advanced batteries and microgrids—technologies the U.S. can only master by sustaining its domestic industrial base.

The political tension risks fracturing the GOP’s narrow congressional majority, threatening a policy logjam that benefits no one.

________________________________________

VI. Paths to Redemption: Reimagining U.S. Strategy

Selective Reinvestment

Reauthorizing the tax credits with stricter regional and domestic-content requirements could rebuild U.S. capacity while minimizing China’s market share.

________________________________________

Public–Private Partnerships

Expand ARPA-E and DOE’s Loan Programs Office to underwrite pilot clean-energy hubs in the Heartland, with mission-driven goals akin to the Manhattan and Apollo projects.

________________________________________

Strategic Tariffs 2.0

Calibrated, temporary tariffs on solar panels and batteries from non-Tariff-Alliance countries, coupled with import quotas that phase out over a defined ramp-up period.

________________________________________

Allied Industrial Initiatives

Partnering with the EU, Japan, and Australia on cross-border critical-mineral processing, shared R&D platforms, and joint manufacturing ventures to diversify dependencies away from China.

________________________________________

Civil-Military Synergies

Leveraging defense procurement to guarantee offtake for nascent energy-storage and microgrid firms, creating anchor customers that drive scale economies.

________________________________________

Epilogue

The Trump administration’s retreat from the clean-energy frontier was more than a policy pivot; it was a watershed moment that reshaped the global balance of power, economic trajectories, and the planet’s climatic destiny. By abandoning ambitious renewable-energy goals, withdrawing from international climate agreements, and rolling back domestic environmental regulations, the administration effectively ceded America’s role as a technological vanguard and strategic innovator to rising competitors in Beijing and a reinvigorated European Union.

At its core, the decision to deprioritize clean energy was a profound strategic miscalculation. In the 21st century, energy policy is national security policy. Renewable-energy technologies—from advanced battery storage to next-generation solar photovoltaics—are dual-use platforms with both civilian and military applications. By retreating, the United States forfeited critical ground in sectors that will define economic and military power in the decades ahead. China, leveraging state-directed capital and manufacturing scale, surged ahead in solar panel production, lithium-ion battery manufacturing, and the deployment of electric vehicles (EVs). Meanwhile, Brussels, armed with the European Green Deal, marshaled public and private investment to create a pan-continental energy transition roadmap. The relative retrenchment of U.S. policy has left American firms scrambling to catch up, undermining supply-chain resilience and exposing strategic vulnerabilities in critical minerals and clean-tech components.

The industrial fallout has been no less severe. Clean-energy industries are among the fastest-growing segments of the global economy, offering high-wage manufacturing jobs, export opportunities, and ancillary innovation in materials science and robotics. U.S. states that had begun cultivating clean-tech clusters—particularly California, Texas, and those in the Rust Belt—saw investment shift to regions with more stable policy signals. The hiatus in federal support for research and development (R&D) eroded the once-thriving collaboration between national laboratories, universities, and private-sector innovators. Meanwhile, tariffs and trade disputes further distorted markets, raising costs for solar modules and wind-turbine components while provoking retaliatory measures that threatened U.S. exports.

Perhaps the most profound cost is human. Climate change is a crisis of unprecedented scale, and every year of delayed action deepens the cumulative emissions that drive planetary warming. Rolling back vehicle-emissions standards and freezing fuel-efficiency targets have locked in higher pollution levels, disproportionately burdening low-income and marginalized communities near highways, refineries, and power plants. The administration’s focus on short-term gains in fossil-fuel extraction overlooked the accelerating frequency of extreme weather, wildfires, and sea-level rise—events that carry staggering economic and humanitarian tolls. The moral dimension of climate leadership hinges on intergenerational equity; in relinquishing its mantle, the United States also abdicated moral authority in global forums and negotiations.

History seldom offers graceful verdicts, but the record will be stark. Was this retrenchment a fleeting detour, corrected by subsequent administrations, or the opening chapter of a protracted decline in American industrial preeminence? The answer will depend on the country’s capacity to rebuild, recommit to innovation, and reestablish partnerships both at home and abroad. Promising signs—such as bipartisan support for infrastructure bills that include clean-energy funding, and a resurgence of state and municipal climate pledges—suggest that the ambition void may be filled.

Yet ambition alone is not enough. Restoring leadership demands a coherent strategy that aligns federal incentives, regulatory frameworks, and diplomatic engagement. It requires a renewed emphasis on workforce training, domestic supply chains for critical minerals, and direct investment in emerging technologies like green hydrogen, carbon capture, and next-generation nuclear. The coming decade will test America’s resolve: to seize the opportunities of the clean-energy revolution or to concede further ground to those who see climate action not as a burden, but as the greatest industrial and security imperative of our time.

In the end, the Trump administration’s retreat will be judged not only for what was undone but also for what it galvanized. If it spurred a deeper reckoning—with the limits of partisan divides, the urgency of climate justice, and the strategic stakes of innovation—then history may yet view this era as the crucible from which a more determined, united, and forward-looking America emerged. If not, it risks marking the prelude to America’s long twilight as an energy and industrial superpower.

Gratitude is our heartbeat.

Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.

Help us stay loud:

One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.

One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).

Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.

Thank you for keeping the flame alive.

https://x.com/Germantoroghio/status/1915515888515899541

Germán & Co 5/9/25 Germán & Co 5/9/25

Eclipse of the Forgotten: "The Resurgent Legacy of the Blackout Bestiary – Part II

Part 2 explores the mystery fueled by viral momentum and audience demand. We compare two case studies: the Nord Stream pipeline explosions and the Enigmatic Bestiary of the Blackout.

Hypothesis 1: If the Nord Stream blasts in September 2022 are seen as a test of Europe’s dependence on Russian gas rather than isolated sabotage, then the various narratives—ranging from Kremlin false flags to rogue Ukrainian divers—serve as strategic misdirection. By amplifying monstrous "beasts" in public perception, state actors can divert attention from their energy policies and shield classified evidence from scrutiny. Here, the "beast" is the hidden hand obscuring the real motives.

Hypothesis 2: If the Iberian Blackout of April 2025 is treated as a software-centric counterpart to Nord Stream’s hardware attack, then framing it around animal scapegoats or coincidences conceals structural grid weaknesses like low inertia and regulatory delays. Both events suggest that flashy culprits—whether divers or mythical creatures—are used to mask systemic vulnerabilities, allowing stakeholders to delay necessary reforms. Again, the "beast" is the hidden hand evading accountability.

"The Energy Transition: A Critical Analysis of Power"

1. "Plays: The Political Engineering of Energy Sector Chaos"

2. "Nord Stream: From Baltic Lifeline to Geopolitical Flashpoint"

3. "President Donald Trump's Deadly Uppercut to Nord Stream (2019)"

4. "Who Bears Responsibility in the Current Green Energy Crisis?"

5. "Energy Storage: The Holy Grail of Renewable Energy"

6. "Conclusion to The Fables of Blackout"

Gratitude is our heartbeat.

Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.

Help us stay loud:

One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.

One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).

Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.

Thank you for keeping the flame alive.

https://x.com/Germantoroghio/status/1925648579575636326

By Germán & Co.
Karlstad, Sweden | May 22, 2025

________________________________________

a. Introduction

The Energy Transition: A Critical Analysis

Germán & Co. has become a transformative voice in today’s rapidly evolving energy landscape. Our industry-shaping insights have garnered over 250,000 engagements across Energy Central’s platforms. With an industry-leading Reputation Score of 339,812—exceeding 99% of our sector peers—we demonstrate the authority and trust that our analyses command. We are ranked 15th among Energy Central’s global influencers, consistently advancing the energy conversation.

The viral success of publications such as “Greta Thunberg: Decoding the Icon Shaping Climate Discourse” (over 2 million views on X) and “Fluence Energy in the Amazing Voyage of India's Metamorphosis” (3,818 views on LinkedIn in one day and 49,000 views on X) highlights our ability to anticipate trends and translate complex information into actionable insights. Unlike conventional analysts, we combine data-driven precision with strategic vision, positioning Germán & Co. as the preferred partner for decision-makers navigating critical energy challenges. Global leaders rely on our insights to drive measurable progress when clarity is essential.

Our analysis series, “The Enigmatic Bestiary of the Blackout,” has become a cultural touchpoint, achieving over 1,000 views in just 24 hours on LinkedIn and sparking significant discussion with its bold examination of systemic decay. Part 2 of the saga reinforces its sharp argument that animal interference is a convenient scapegoat, a deliberate distraction from collapsing infrastructure and willful political negligence.

This piece is no mere commentary—it’s a myth-busting manifesto. With scalpel-sharp analysis, we expose how certain politicians weaponise ideology as slick marketing, bending facts to suit their agendas. Few sectors suffer more from this distortion than energy. The convenient trope of “nature’s chaos” deflects responsibility, but the uncomfortable truth remains: blackouts aren’t triggered by rogue raccoons—they result from systemic rot.

Part 2 delves deeper into the mystery, driven by viral momentum and audience demand. Join the reckoning and dare to confront the truths that "they" attribute to beasts. We have compared two case studies: Nord Stream and The Enigmatic Bestiary of the Blackout.

Hypothesis 1: If the Nord Stream pipeline blasts of September 2022 are interpreted not merely as isolated acts of sabotage but as a deliberate test of Europe’s dependency on Russian gas, then the subsequent fog of competing narratives—blaming everything from Kremlin false-flags to rogue Ukrainian divers—serves as strategic misdirection. By amplifying monstrous "beasts" in the public imagination, state actors can divert scrutiny from their energy policies, shield classified forensics from independent review, and renegotiate geopolitical leverage. At the same time, the actual technical evidence remains locked beneath official secrecy. In this case, the beast is the hidden hand, manipulating perceptions to obscure the real players and motives.

Hypothesis 2: If the Iberian Blackout of April 2025 is treated as the software-centered analogue to Nord Stream’s hardware attack, then framing the outage around animal scapegoats or freak coincidences similarly conceals structural grid fragilities: low inertia, vulnerable inverter firmware, and regulatory lag behind rapid renewable adoption. Together, the pipeline explosions and the blackout support a broader hypothesis that spectacular culprits—whether divers or mythical lynxes—are routinely deployed to mask systemic vulnerabilities, allowing political and industrial stakeholders to postpone costly reforms until the subsequent failure forces another cycle of blame. Here, too, the beast is the hidden hand, using misdirection to avoid accountability and reform.

________________________________________

On May 24, 2023, Matt Chester, Senior Editor at Energy Central, interviewed us and opened the discussion with a key observation:

"Energy news is no longer a niche topic reserved for industry professionals. Today, major developments in utilities, oil, and gas routinely make mainstream headlines—and for good reason. The energy sector now plays a pivotal role in shaping the global economy, international geopolitics, and even our everyday lives."

This shift underscores just how critical energy has become in today’s world.

In today’s fast-moving energy landscape, following the conversations that shape the industry is more essential—and more time-consuming—than ever. That’s why it helps to have community experts who comb through the headlines and surface the items that are most timely, impactful, and worth your attention. Germán Toro Ghio has been doing that before joining our Energy Central Network of Experts.

When we asked Germán how to navigate the extraordinary geopolitical turbulence facing oil and gas, from Russia’s war in Ukraine to OPEC’s market sway and the counter-moves of the United States and its allies, he offered this reflection:

“That’s a profoundly challenging question. It takes me back to those marathon corporate strategy sessions where we would dutifully model even the most improbable, seemingly absurd scenarios. Tragically, some of those scenarios have now come true, with dire consequences for the global economy and for humanity. As we look back, we must be both transparent and unsparing in our analysis. One crisis stemmed from a grave political miscalculation involving critical energy infrastructure; another lingering health crisis remains cloaked in uncertainty and speculation. Together they serve as a stark reminder of how quickly our world can unravel—and of the imperative to make wise decisions that place everyone’s safety and well-being first.”

On pressing concerns and reasons for optimism in the energy sector:

"I’m deeply concerned by the current trajectory and the reflexive, unexamined decisions it’s producing—though I’ll leave specific technologies out of this discussion for now.. While innovation should always be encouraged, we must never lose sight of the sector’s non-negotiables: dependable power generation and secure fuel supplies. If there’s cause for optimism, it’s that policymakers seem to be learning from past failures. Europe’s overreliance on a single pipeline and supplier stands as a stark lesson—one we cannot afford to repeat." Never forget this picture:

The Anatomy of Political Uncertainty in Energy Markets: A Multidimensional Crisis

The transition to low-carbon energy systems hinges on predictable policy frameworks that allow investors to price risk and allocate capital efficiently. Yet political actors frequently undermine this stability in liberalised markets, weaponizing uncertainty through mechanisms that distort market signals, inflate financing costs, and delay decarbonization. This phenomenon is not incidental but systemic, rooted in electoral cycles, geopolitical posturing, and reactive policymaking. Below, we dissect the five channels politicians amplify uncertainty, revealing how short-term political calculus jeopardizes long-term energy security and climate goals.

________________________________________

b. How Politicians Create Uncertainty in the Energy Sector

1. Rhetorical Signalling: The Power of Words Over Markets

Political rhetoric is rarely idle. Campaign promises, ideological statements, and even casual remarks can trigger significant shifts in energy markets before any legislation is enacted. For example, campaign speeches and spontaneous tweets can influence futures markets months before legal changes. A notable case is President Trump’s 2017 promise to revive “beautiful, clean coal,” which momentarily boosted Appalachian coal indices despite the absence of any supporting legislation (Plumer, 2017; Newell et al., 2019).

When candidates propose radical reforms—such as nationalizing utilities or banning fossil fuels—investors adjust their risk assessments quickly. Newell et al. (2019) illustrate how futures markets for oil, gas, and renewables respond to electoral debates, with price volatility increasing due to populist rhetoric. This “governance by soundbite” phenomenon creates a feedback loop: media amplification of political statements heightens perceived risk, distorting capital flows.

A tweet from a U.S. president about "ending fossil fuels" or a vow from a European leader to "phase out nuclear overnight" could lead to stranded assets or frozen investments, even if such policies encounter legislative blockages.

2. Regulatory Oscillation: The High Cost of Policy Whiplash

Given the sector's capital-intensive, long-term horizons, regulatory stability is the bedrock of energy investment. But abrupt policy reversals—driven by shifting political coalitions or public opinion—impose catastrophic costs. Germany’s nuclear saga epitomizes this: Chancellor Merkel’s 2010 decision to extend reactor lifespans (a pro-nuclear stance) was overturned in 2011 post-Fukushima, mandating a full phase-out by 2022. Overnight, utilities like RWE and E.ON faced €40 billion in stranded assets, while gas plants were hastily approved to fill the gap, raising emissions (Traber & Kemfert, 2012). Similarly, the UK’s 2015 retroactive cuts to solar subsidies bankrupted installers and eroded investor trust for years. Such oscillations force firms to hedge against political, rather than market, risk, raising capital costs and deterring innovation.

3. Strategic Sanctions: Geopolitics as Market Sabotage

Energy infrastructure has become a battleground for geopolitical coercion, with sanctions weaponised to destabilise competitors. The U.S. PEESA sanctions on Nord Stream 2, targeting firms involved in the pipeline’s construction, exemplify how extraterritorial measures override market logic. Despite EU regulatory approvals, the threat of secondary sanctions froze financing and delayed completion by years, raising the project’s cost by €10 billion (de Jong, 2022). These actions signal that even commercially viable projects are subject to political whims, compelling investors to price in "geopolitical risk premiums." The chilling effect extends beyond targeted projects: firms now scrutinise supply chains and partnerships for exposure to rival blocs, fragmenting global energy markets.

4. Politicized Permitting: When Red Tape Becomes a Political Tool

Permitting processes, ostensibly technical, are often hijacked for ideological or electoral ends. Spain’s 2012 suspension of renewable feed-in tariffs—retroactively slashing subsidies—paralyzed its wind and solar sectors, erasing €20 billion in investments and triggering over 50 international lawsuits (del Río & Mir-Artigues, 2012). More subtly, permitting delays for pipelines or grid upgrades can starve projects of capital. In the U.S., partisan battles over federal lands for drilling or renewables create bottlenecks, with permit approvals swinging dramatically between administrations. This politicization transforms bureaucracy into a lever for stifling disfavored technologies, chilling investment even in regions with abundant resources.

5. Security Shocks: The Unquantifiable Risk of Sabotage

Whether state-sponsored or opportunistic, physical attacks on energy infrastructure inject existential risk into markets. The 2022 Nord Stream pipeline explosion severed Europe’s gas supply, forcing insurers to reassess subsea cables, LNG terminals, and offshore wind farms globally. Premiums for such assets surged by 30–50% overnight, with insurers demanding unaffordable war-risk clauses (Kalm, 2024). Unlike market risks, sabotage threats defy actuarial modelling, creating "unknown unknowns" that deter long-term commitments. Politicians exacerbate this by failing to secure cross-border infrastructure or invest in grid resilience, exposing markets to cascading disruptions.

6. The Cumulative Toll: Financing Costs and Delayed Transitions

The IEA estimates that policy uncertainty adds 100–300 basis points to renewable energy financing in emerging markets—equivalent to a 20–30% increase in levelized costs (IEA, 2021). For context, this premium could render a viable solar project in India or Nigeria unbankable. In advanced economies, regulatory whiplash has slowed offshore wind deployment, with developers demanding higher power purchase agreements to hedge against retroactive policy changes. Fossil fuel interests often benefit from this chaos, as investors retreat to incumbent technologies with shorter payback periods, perpetuating carbon lock-in.

7. Toward Stability: Cross-Party Frameworks as Antidotes

Durable decarbonization requires insulating energy policy from electoral cycles. Denmark’s 2012 Energy Agreement, ratified by 95% of parliament, locked in 2050 net-zero targets, spurring consistent offshore wind investment. Similarly, Chile’s 2022 Green Hydrogen Strategy, backed by all major parties, has attracted $20 billion in commitments. Such frameworks prioritize incremental, consensus-driven reforms over grandstanding—a recognition that markets reward predictability, not political theater.

The energy transition is a technological or economic challenge and a test of political maturity. Until leaders cease treating energy policy as a tool for short-term gain, the world will pay a steep price: slower decarbonization, higher consumer costs, and a destabilized climate.

**November 8, 2011 | Lubmin, Germany / Zug, Switzerland** — European and Russian leaders gathered today on Germany’s Baltic coast to inaugurate the Nord Stream Pipeline.

c. Nord Stream: From Baltic Lifeline to Geopolitical Flashpoint

________________________________________

1. Baltic Lifeline (2011)

On Tuesday, November 8, 2011, the quiet Baltic harbour of Lubmin in Germany briefly became the centre of Europe’s energy hopes. Surrounded by a forest of camera cranes, German Chancellor Angela Merkel stood alongside Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, French Prime Minister François Fillon, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte (now NATO’s secretary general), and EU Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger to inaugurate Nord Stream 1. This 1,224-kilometre twin gas pipeline runs from Vyborg to Germany. The day's rhetoric overflowed with superlatives: the pipeline was described as a "strategic lifeline," destined to provide half a century of reliable supply and free Europe from the unreliable overland routes that passed through Ukraine and Belarus.

Privately, Merkel had reservations. Unlike her predecessor, Gerhard Schröder, whose post-chancellorship role at Gazprom made him Moscow’s favoured German, Merkel does not trust the Kremlin nor view infrastructure as a reliable safeguard. She believed that cooperation was preferable to confrontation, and that the occasion called for optimism.

“Today we bridge not just nations but futures,” she declared, casting Nord Stream as both an engine of prosperity and a bulwark against energy insecurity.

By late 2012, the line was to deliver 55 billion cubic metres of Siberian gas each year—enough to heat 26 million households—while supposedly insulating Europe from the vagaries of transit politics. Yet critics warned that funnelling nearly one-third of the EU’s imports through a single supplier merely traded one vulnerability for another, echoing the continent’s Cold War dependence on Soviet pipelines.

A decade later, those warnings would prove prophetic; the “divine pipeline” would be revealed less as a celestial gift than as a geopolitical fault line.

________________________________________

Image licensed from Shutterstock, rights held by Germán & Co.

_______________________

2. President Donald Trump’s Deadly Uppercut to Nord Stream (2019)

Washington’s decision to sanction Nord Stream 2 in December 2019 marked a dramatic inflection point in the long-running tug-of-war over Europe’s energy future. For most of the 2010s, the twin-pipeline project under the Baltic Sea advanced steadily, promising to double Russia’s direct gas-export capacity to Germany while bypassing Ukraine and other Eastern European transit states. Yet that very promise—of deeper Russian leverage over Europe’s critical energy arteries—also crystallized Washington’s deepest strategic anxieties. When President Donald Trump signed the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act on 20 December 2019, he activated the Protecting Europe’s Energy Security Act (PEESA) and, with it, an unprecedented tool kit of sanctions aimed squarely at the vessels, insurers, financiers, and service providers enabling Nord Stream 2’s final kilometers of pipe-laying.

The immediate fallout was striking. Within twenty-four hours, the Swiss-Dutch contractor Allseas halted operations and withdrew its specialised pipe-laying ship, bringing construction to an abrupt standstill just 160 kilometres from the German coast. European capitals, already divided over the pipeline’s merits, were thrust into an awkward diplomatic triangle: Berlin condemned the U.S. move as extraterritorial overreach, Warsaw and Kyiv applauded it as overdue protection against Kremlin coercion, and Brussels tried—largely in vain—to broker a face-saving compromise. Meanwhile, Moscow vowed to finish the project with its assets, casting the sanctions as proof that American LNG exporters cared less about European security than about grabbing market share.

Yet the drama did more than freeze a single infrastructure project; it signalled a broader shift in U.S. foreign-policy doctrine. For the first time, Washington was willing to weaponize financial sanctions not merely to punish adversaries but to reshape allied countries’ commercial decisions in a sector as sensitive as energy. Over the following year the State Department repeatedly widened the net—issuing interpretive guidance in July and October 2020 that threatened penalties against any entity providing even “non-covered services,” Congress broadened the statutory mandate again with PEESCA in January 2021. When the outgoing Trump administration designated the Russian barge Fortuna and its owner KVT-RUS on 19 January 2021, a blueprint had been laid for using sanctions as an instrument of great-power competition in Europe’s gas markets.

Facing mounting pressure, the Kremlin and the state government of Mecklenburg‑Vorpommern—home to Nord Stream’s German landfall—devised a workaround. In January 2021 Premier Manuela Schwesig (SPD) set up the publicly chartered “Climate and Environmental Protection Foundation – MV” (Stiftung Klima‑ und Umweltschutz MV). Ostensibly green‑minded, the foundation received a €20 million endowment from Nord Stream 2 AG and was empowered to procure vessels, equipment, and services that private firms now shunned for fear of PEESA penalties. Critics labelled it a “sanctions‑evasion vehicle” operated with Moscow’s blessing; supporters argued it preserved local jobs and safeguarded energy security. Berlin watched warily, while Washington warned that laundering transactions through a foundation would not shield participants from future sanctions.

Framed against the cascading crises that followed—COVID-19’s demand shock, the 2021–22 energy-price spike, and Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine—the 2019 sanctions now read like the opening chapter of a longer struggle to define Europe’s energy sovereignty. They exposed rifts within NATO, foreshadowed the Biden administration’s own hard choices (and temporary waiver) on Nord Stream 2, and demonstrated how infrastructure once considered a purely economic undertaking could be recast overnight as a strategic vulnerability. Understanding the origins, mechanics, and consequences of the Trump-era sanctions is essential, not merely to recount a policy skirmish, but to grasp the evolving playbook of energy statecraft in an age when pipelines and tankers matter as much as tanks and missiles.

________________________________________

3. Sabotage in the Baltic (2022)

At dawn on 26 September 2022, two powerful underwater explosions ripped open three of the four Nord Stream strings near Denmark’s Bornholm Island. Seismic stations recorded shocks equivalent to small earthquakes; methane plumes boiled to the surface.

Germany, Sweden, and Denmark quickly labelled the incident "deliberate sabotage." Military‑grade explosive residue was later found on recovered pipe sections, and investigators traced a rented yacht, Andromeda, to a still‑unconfirmed team of covert divers. Whether the culprits were state actors, freelancers, or proxies remains unresolved, but the strategic impact was clear:

Capacity lost: Nord Stream 1—already running at reduced flow—became inoperable; one of Nord Stream 2’s two lines was crippled before it ever shipped a molecule.
Risk repriced: Global insurers and operators reassessed the vulnerability of every subsea pipeline, telecom cable and power link.
NATO alarmed: The Alliance has created a Critical Undersea Infrastructure Coordination Cell, acknowledging that undersea assets are now frontline targets.

________________________________________

4. Strategic Lessons

Energy as Statecraft. Trump‑era sanctions highlighted how financial instruments can halt a multibillion‑euro project without a single soldier crossing a border.
Escalation Ladder. The 2022 blasts showed that sabotage can follow sanctions, turning valves into targets and turning them into bargaining chips.
Alliance Fault Lines. Nord Stream consistently exposed divergent threat perceptions: Berlin versus Washington, Warsaw and Kyiv; Brussels versus Moscow.
Accelerated Diversification. Each blow—sanctions, pandemic, invasion, explosions—pushed Europe to pivot away from Russian gas faster than any policy blueprint.

________________________________________

5. The Road Ahead

Nord Stream’s journey from celebrated lifeline to fractured liability mirrors Europe’s broader quest to marry affordable energy with strategic autonomy. Whether the following molecules arrive as green hydrogen through North‑Sea corridors or as LNG across the Atlantic, one constant endures: molecules and electrons travel only as securely as the politics that protect them.

Europe’s task is to craft an energy system resilient enough that no single sanction, blast, or bargaining chip can again darken its lights—or divide its alliance.

Nord Stream’s arc—from a symbol of post‑Cold‑War optimism to a ruptured monument of realpolitik—captures a larger truth: energy infrastructure is never just about molecules and megawatts; it is about power, trust, and the stories nations tell themselves. The pipeline’s rise and fall reveal three imperatives for the decades ahead:

Diversify or Depend? Europe cannot outsource its security to a single supplier or technology. Gas, renewables, hydrogen, efficiency—all must share the load so that failure anywhere is a catastrophe elsewhere.
Make Policy Boring Again. Markets crave predictability more than subsidies. Durable, bipartisan frameworks beat headline‑driven pivots, lowering capital costs and accelerating the clean‑energy transition.
Securing the Unseen. Cables, pipes, data links—what lies on the seabed underwrites prosperity on land. Protecting this critical undersea web is now as vital as defending airspace.

If leaders absorb these lessons, Nord Stream’s fractured steel may yet serve a purpose: a cautionary landmark pointing toward an energy system that is cleaner, cheaper, and—above all—harder to hold hostage.

________________________________________

References

1. BMWK (Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action) (2022) ‘Extension of nuclear power plant operation for grid stability’, Press release, 17 October. Berlin: BMWK.

2. del Río, P. and Mir‑Artigues, P. (2012) ‘Support for solar PV deployment in Spain: Some policy lessons’, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(8), pp. 5557‑5566.

3. de Jong, M. (2022) ‘Too little, too late? US sanctions against Nord Stream 2 and the transatlantic relationship’, Journal of Transatlantic Studies, 20(2), pp. 213‑229.

4. Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) (2022) Seasonal Assessment of Resource Adequacy (SARA) for Summer 2022. Austin: ERCOT.

5. International Energy Agency (IEA) (2021) World Energy Investment 2021. Paris: IEA.

6. Kalm, H. (2024) ‘NATO’s path to securing undersea infrastructure in the Baltic Sea’, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 29 May. Available at: https://carnegieendowment.org (Accessed: 22 May 2025).

7. Lockwood, M., Mitchell, C. and Hoggett, R. (2016) ‘Competing paradigms of governance in UK energy policy: Calculating for, and governing through, markets’, Energy Policy, 95, pp. 632‑644.

8. Newell, R.G., Raimi, D. and Aldana, G. (2019) Global Energy Outlook 2019: The Next Generation of Energy. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

9. North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) (2022) Texas February 2021 Cold Weather Event and Reliability Impacts. Atlanta: NERC.

10. Plumer, B. (2017) ‘Trump Signs Executive Order Unwinding Obama Climate Policies’, The New York Times, 28 March. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com (Accessed: 22 May 2025).

11. Traber, T. and Kemfert, C. (2012) ‘German nuclear phase‑out policy: Effects on European electricity wholesale prices, emission prices, conventional power plant investments and electricity trade’, DIW Berlin Discussion Paper 1219.

12. Wiser, R., Bolinger, M. and Barbose, G. (2017) ‘Wind energy boom‑bust cycles, variability and price drivers in the United States’, Energy Economics, 65, pp. 305‑315.

_______________________________________

d. Who Bears Responsibility in the Current Green Energy Crisis?

An analysis of today's green energy landscape reveals divergent yet critical responsibilities among key stakeholders - from policymakers and financial institutions to well-funded environmental groups with sophisticated advocacy campaigns. The power industry is perhaps the weakest part of this complex chain. Many may wonder why this is the case. Politicians have played a crucial role in shaping the renewable energy landscape by setting ambitious targets and implementing generous subsidies to accelerate the transition from fossil fuels. However, this enthusiasm has sometimes lacked foresight, leading to oversights in critical areas such as energy security and supply diversification. Policymakers have dangerously underestimated the oil industry's enduring influence while failing to address growing security threats. In recent years, cyberattacks, terrorist sabotage, and attacks on critical infrastructure—including the repeated targeting of undersea power cables serving North Sea offshore wind farms—have exposed these vulnerabilities. Europe's over-reliance on a single energy supplier and pipeline network has demonstrated the consequences of such oversight. This crisis underscores a fundamental truth: effective energy policy must marry environmental ambition with operational realism, prioritising security and diversified supply chains. (10)

Indeed, financial institutions, too, have substantially influenced the trajectory of the energy sector, often driven by immediate profitability and compliance with emerging environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria. While crucial for long-term sustainability, the banking sector's enthusiastic embrace of renewable projects has occasionally overshadowed essential investments in complementary technologies and infrastructure, such as energy storage and grid modernisation (IEA, 2020; World Economic Forum, 2021). President Donald Trump has been a vocal critic of ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) mandates, arguing that they impose burdensome regulations on the energy sector and hinder economic growth. He has taken steps to roll back such policies, including issuing executive orders to halt the enforcement of state laws targeting energy companies over climate change and ESG initiatives. Moreover, the rapid divestment from fossil fuel projects—partly driven by ESG mandates—has unintentionally led to shortfalls in energy supply. This has contributed to market volatility and heightened short-term risks. These developments underscore the importance of financial strategies that support urgent climate action and ensure a stable and managed energy transition. (11)

Center for Sustainability & Excellence+4esgdive.com+4hklaw.com+4 Independent Women's Forum

________________________________________

e. Sustainable Energy: The Paradox of Balancing Idealism and Pragmatism in a Polluted World.

For more than a century, industrial activity has saturated Earth’s ecosystems with pollutants, from microplastics choking marine life to heavy metals leaching into groundwater. The oceans, often romanticised as pristine frontiers, are archives of human negligence: discarded fishing gear smothers coral reefs, agricultural runoff fuels dead zones, and traces of mid-twentieth-century nuclear tests lie even in the Mariana Trench. Beyond Earth, the exosphere has become a junkyard of ambition, cluttered with over 9,000 tons of derelict satellites and rocket debris—a monument to humanity’s habit of externalizing costs. Set against this backdrop, the intense scrutiny of transitional energy technologies sometimes appears disproportionate. Nuclear power, for instance, contributes less than 1 % of the ocean’s radioactivity (naturally occurring potassium-40 dominates), yet fears of contaminated coolant water often eclipse its capacity to avert gigatonnes of carbon emissions.

This is not to dismiss environmental concerns, but to insist on calibration. Climate scientist James Hansen, an early voice on global warming, argues that nuclear energy’s dense, reliable output is indispensable while renewables scale. Modern reactor designs—small modular reactors (SMRs), molten-salt systems, and advanced fuel recycling (pioneered for decades in France)—promise higher safety margins and lower waste volumes. Although a fossil fuel, natural gas can also serve as a tactical reprieve: replacing coal (still 35 % of global electricity) can roughly halve CO₂ per kilowatt-hour and sharply cut particulate pollution. The International Energy Agency emphasises that if paired with strict methane controls and explicit sunset clauses, gas infrastructure can buy time for wind, solar, and grid storage to mature (IEA 2019).

1. National snapshots

France launched its civilian nuclear programme in the 1950s, accelerating after the oil shocks of the 1970s. Today, 56 pressurised-water reactors across 18 sites generate about 70 % of France's electricity, giving the country low-carbon power and energy security. French expertise extends to the European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) and next-generation concepts such as SMRs.
Under Energy Minister Ebba Busch, Sweden has pivoted back to nuclear energy. Legislation enacted in 2023 streamlines licensing, classifies nuclear energy as “green” under the EU taxonomy, and envisages up to ten new reactors—including SMRs—by 2045. Six existing reactors already supply roughly 30 % of Sweden's electricity.
After decades of oscillating policy, Germany shut its final three reactors in April 2023. A 2025 poll showed 55 % public support for revisiting nuclear, and the new conservative government has softened its stance. Yet technical, economic, and political barriers make a near-term restart unlikely; the focus remains on accelerating renewables and securing diversified energy imports.
Spain experienced a nationwide blackout on 28 April 2025, during which all seven reactors shut down automatically yet cooled safely on backup power. The incident reignited debate over Madrid’s roadmap to phase out nuclear power between 2027 and 2035, highlighting the resilience challenges of grids dominated by variable renewables.

2. Activism, politics, and pragmatism

Environmental movements have been pivotal in raising climate awareness, from multilateral milestones like the Paris Agreement to grassroots campaigns like Fridays for Future. Nevertheless, critics note a perceived elitism: policies championed by well-educated urban activists can appear disconnected from working-class realities, a gap exploited by populist parties that blame green measures for higher living costs (Malm 2021; Lockwood 2018). Ultra-conservative factions frame aggressive environmental regulation as an economic burden on younger generations already priced out of housing and stable employment (Spash 2021).

Opponents of transitional technologies warn of moral hazard—investments today might entrench carbon-intensive infrastructure tomorrow. Yet climate models show the cost of delay is steeper. Solar and wind, while transformative, remain intermittent, geographically constrained, and land-intensive; even bullish forecasts suggest they cannot carry global demand alone before mid-century. Outright rejection of nuclear and gas risks prolonging coal’s dominance—a far deadlier adversary. Nuanced policy is essential: prioritise renewables, allow transitional technologies under strict time limits, and embed sunset mechanisms.

In the end, environmentalists must confront uncomfortable trade-offs. Perfect solutions suit a planet changing slowly; ours, warming rapidly, demands pragmatic triage. As Hansen et al. (2013) note, “Opposition to nuclear power threatens humanity’s ability to avoid dangerous climate change.” The same logic applies to the judicious use of gas: to fixate solely on the bridge’s risk is to ignore the precipice on either side.

3. Towards a balanced transition

Constructive convergence is already visible. European policymakers, chastened by recent energy-security shocks, now favour diversified low-carbon portfolios; financial institutions increasingly tie capital to credible transition plans; and some environmental groups are adopting more inclusive, strategically flexible positions. Successful energy transitions will depend on integrating ecological ambition, economic prudence, and robust security, while maintaining public trust through relatable, evidence-based advocacy.

________________________________________

References

1. Hansen, J., et al. (2013). "Preventing Dangerous Climate Change." *Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.*

2. International Energy Agency (IEA). (2019). "The Role of Gas in Today’s Energy Transitions."

3. Malm, A. (2021). "How to Blow Up a Pipeline." Verso Books.

4. North, D. (2011). "The Environmental Movement and the Politics of Class." Environmental Politics.

5. Lockwood, M. (2018). "Right-Wing Populism and the Climate Change Agenda." Environmental Politics.

6. Spash, C. (2021). "The Political Economy of the Paris Agreement on Human Induced Climate Change." Globalizations.

7. Stokes, L., & Warshaw, C. (2017). "The Politics of Energy and Climate Change in the United States." Energy Policy.

8. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). (2015). "Paris Agreement."

________________________________________

f. Conclusion of The Fables of Blackout

1. The Anatomy of Infrastructure Failure and Political Deflection

Spain's energy blackouts represent more than isolated technical failures—they constitute a revealing lens through which to examine the complex interplay between infrastructure vulnerability, political accountability, and the contested narratives that emerge when systems fail. The phenomenon of "El Apagón Felino" serves as a particularly instructive case study, not merely because a lynx was initially blamed for a grid failure, but because this scapegoating reveals the systematic tendency of institutions to externalize responsibility when confronted with the uncomfortable reality of their inadequate planning.

This pattern of deflection is neither accidental nor unique to Spain. When critical infrastructure fails, the immediate institutional response often involves identifying the most politically palatable explanation—preferably one that absolves human decision-makers of responsibility. Wildlife, weather events, or "acts of God" become convenient culprits, deflecting attention from the more uncomfortable truths about deferred maintenance, inadequate investment, or systemic design flaws. The lynx becomes a metaphor for broader institutional failures to acknowledge and address the growing gap between ambitious renewable energy targets and the fundamental infrastructure investments required to support them.

2. The Paradox of Renewable Success and Grid Instability

Spain's position as a renewable energy leader presents a fascinating paradox that illuminates the complexities of energy transition. The country has achieved remarkable success in renewable deployment—solar and wind now constitute significant portions of its energy mix, positioning Spain as a climate policy exemplar. Yet this success has exposed profound vulnerabilities in the broader energy ecosystem, creating new forms of instability even as it addresses others.

The rapid scaling of renewable capacity has fundamentally altered the physics of the Spanish grid. Traditional power systems were designed around the predictable, controllable output of centralized fossil fuel and nuclear plants. Integrating massive amounts of variable renewable energy has introduced new technical challenges that existing infrastructure was never designed to handle. Grid operators now must manage dramatic fluctuations in supply that can occur within minutes, as cloud cover shifts across solar installations or wind patterns change across vast wind farms.

This transformation has created what energy engineers describe as the "integration challenge"—the gap between renewable energy potential and the grid's ability to utilize that potential effectively. Spain regularly experiences periods where renewable generation exceeds demand, forcing operators to curtail output and waste clean energy. Conversely, during periods of low renewable generation, the system struggles to maintain stability without adequate backup capacity or storage resources.

3. The Critical Role of Energy Storage in Grid Transformation

Energy storage emerges as perhaps the most critical missing piece in Spain's renewable puzzle. The intermittency challenge is not merely a technical inconvenience—it represents a fundamental mismatch between the temporal patterns of renewable energy generation and electricity demand. Solar generation peaks during midday hours when commercial demand is high but residential demand remains moderate, while wind patterns often peak during nighttime hours when overall demand is lowest.

The temporal mismatch creates cascading problems throughout the energy system without adequate storage capacity. Excess renewable energy that cannot be stored becomes a liability, forcing grid operators to curtail clean energy production or export surplus power at unfavourable prices to neighbouring markets. During periods of low renewable generation, the system must rely heavily on remaining fossil fuel plants, which are increasingly expensive to maintain as they operate less frequently and less predictably.

Deploying grid-forming batteries and other advanced storage technologies represents more than just a technical upgrade—it constitutes a fundamental reimagining of how electrical grids operate. Unlike traditional "grid-following" renewable installations that feed power into existing grid infrastructure, grid-forming technologies can help provide the stability services that traditional power plants once provided. These systems can respond to frequency fluctuations, provide voltage support, and help maintain grid stability during rapid changes.

However, the required storage deployment scale is staggering. Spain would need to install storage capacity measured in tens of gigawatt-hours to manage its renewable fleet's variability effectively. The investment would rival the cost of the renewable installations themselves. This reality highlights why storage cannot be treated as an afterthought in renewable energy planning but must be integrated from the earliest stages of system design.

4. Economic Interests and the Battle for Energy's Future

The ideological battles surrounding the energy transition cannot be separated from the powerful economic interests that shape energy policy and infrastructure investment. The renewable energy sector has evolved into a massive industrial complex, with manufacturers, developers, and financial institutions holding billions of dollars in assets tied to continued renewable deployment. These stakeholders have powerful incentives to promote rapid renewable expansion, sometimes with insufficient attention to the infrastructure investments needed to support that expansion effectively.

Simultaneously, incumbent fossil fuel and nuclear industries face existential threats from renewable energy growth. Their responses have ranged from attempting to slow renewable deployment through regulatory and legal challenges to pivoting their business models to maintain relevance in a changing energy landscape. Utility companies are caught in the middle, maintaining grid reliability while navigating rapidly changing technology costs, regulatory requirements, and customer expectations.

Financial institutions add another layer of complexity, as they increasingly view renewable energy projects as attractive investment opportunities while simultaneously holding significant exposure to existing fossil fuel infrastructure. This creates complex incentive structures where the same institutions may simultaneously finance renewable energy expansion and lobby against policies that would accelerate the retirement of existing fossil fuel assets.

The result is an energy policy landscape shaped as much by these competing economic interests as by technical requirements or environmental concerns. Subsidy structures, market design rules, and regulatory frameworks often reflect political compromises between these interests rather than optimal engineering solutions. Spain's experience illustrates how this dynamic can lead to renewable energy deployment that outpaces supporting infrastructure, creating new vulnerabilities even as it addresses climate concerns.

5. Regulatory Frameworks and the Challenge of Adaptive Governance

The regulatory challenges exposed by Spain's renewable transition extend far beyond simple rule-making to fundamental questions about how governance systems adapt to technological change. Traditional electricity regulation developed around stable, predictable systems dominated by large, centralized power plants. Integrating massive amounts of variable renewable energy requires new regulatory approaches to accommodate uncertainty, promote flexibility, and coordinate across multiple time scales and geographic boundaries.

Current regulatory frameworks often struggle to price the true value of flexibility and reliability in systems with high renewable penetration. Traditional electricity markets focus primarily on energy commodity prices, with limited mechanisms to reward grid stability services that become increasingly valuable as renewable penetration increases. This creates situations where renewable energy installations can appear economically attractive in isolation while imposing hidden costs on overall system stability.

Spain's experience suggests that regulatory evolution must occur at the same pace as technological deployment. Delayed regulatory adaptation creates periods of uncertainty that can discourage the infrastructure investments needed to support renewable integration. Grid operators, storage developers, and other critical system participants need clear, consistent regulatory signals to justify the substantial investments required for a successful energy transition.

6. Geopolitical Complexity and Energy Security in Transition

The broader geopolitical context surrounding energy infrastructure adds layers of complexity that go far beyond domestic policy considerations. The Nord Stream pipeline attacks, cyberattacks on grid infrastructure, and threats to undersea power cables illustrate how energy systems have become critical components of the international security architecture. For energy companies operating in this environment, geopolitical risk has evolved from a peripheral concern to a central business consideration.

Spain's position as a European energy hub connected to North Africa through undersea cables and to France through cross-border transmission lines makes it particularly vulnerable to geopolitical disruption. The country's renewable energy transition occurs against broader European energy security concerns, Russian energy supply disruptions, and growing awareness of energy infrastructure as a target for state and non-state actors.

This geopolitical dimension creates additional challenges for energy system planning. Infrastructure investments that make economic sense from a purely domestic perspective may become liabilities if they increase exposure to international disruption. Conversely, investments in energy independence and resilience may be economically suboptimal in the short term while providing crucial strategic value over longer time horizons.

7. The Management Challenge: Navigating Radical Uncertainty

For energy company executives operating in this environment, the challenge extends beyond traditional business management to navigating fundamental uncertainty about the future structure of energy systems. The transition from fossil fuels to renewables represents not merely a fuel switch but a comprehensive transformation of energy system architecture, market structures, regulatory frameworks, and geopolitical relationships.

Traditional business planning models, built around relatively predictable regulatory environments and stable technology costs, become inadequate when facing the radical uncertainty of the energy transition. Companies must simultaneously manage existing assets with declining long-term value, invest in new technologies with uncertain returns, and navigate regulatory frameworks in flux.

The Spanish experience illustrates how quickly energy system realities can change. Companies that invested heavily in renewable development faced unexpected curtailment and grid stability challenges. Utilities that deferred grid modernization investments discovered that their infrastructure could not accommodate the renewable energy they were required to integrate. Financial institutions that provided capital based on traditional energy system assumptions faced new categories of stranded asset risk.

8. Toward Integrated Energy System Planning

Spain's renewable energy transition offers crucial insights for other countries and regions embarking on similar transformations. The most important lesson may be that successful energy transition requires integrated system planning that addresses renewable energy deployment, grid infrastructure modernization, storage development, and regulatory framework evolution as interconnected challenges rather than separate issues.

The technical requirements for high-renewable energy systems are now well understood. The challenge lies in developing institutional capabilities to coordinate investments across these multiple dimensions while managing the political and economic interests that shape energy policy. Spain's experience suggests that countries can avoid some of the growing pains of renewable transition by treating grid modernization and storage deployment as prerequisites for, rather than consequences of, large-scale renewable energy development.

This integrated approach requires new forms of collaboration between government agencies, utility companies, renewable energy developers, and technology providers. It also requires regulatory frameworks sophisticated enough to provide appropriate price signals for the full range of services needed to maintain grid stability in high-renewable systems.

The stakes of getting this integration right extend beyond technical performance to questions of public confidence in renewable energy transition. Infrastructure failures that can be blamed on renewable energy integration, regardless of their actual causes, provide ammunition for opponents of climate action. Conversely, successful integration that maintains high levels of grid reliability while achieving deep decarbonization can be a powerful demonstration of renewable energy viability.

Spain's ongoing experience will continue to provide valuable insights as the country works to resolve the tensions between its renewable energy ambitions and infrastructure realities. The lessons learned—both positive and negative—will prove invaluable for the dozens of other countries now embarking on similar transitions, facing similar challenges, and navigating similar complexities in their own journeys toward sustainable energy systems.

Gratitude is our heartbeat.

Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.

Help us stay loud:

One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.

One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).

Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.

Thank you for keeping the flame alive.

https://x.com/Germantoroghio/status/1915515888515899541

Germán & Co 5/7/25 Germán & Co 5/7/25

OPEC's 'Mother of All Battles' Sparks Global Clash Against the Fracking!

Just as OPEC’s technocrats quietly negotiate oil production amid global volatility, the Vatican’s cardinals clash over doctrine in an era of waning authority. Both institutions navigate a fragmented world where traditional hierarchies are dissolving—a condition mirrored in the persona of Madonna Louise Ciccone, the “Queen of Pop.” Far beyond her image as an erotic provocateur, Madonna symbolizes the evolution of Western iconoclasm, her career tracing America’s oscillation between Puritan restraint and capitalist spectacle. Her provocative use of Catholic imagery, rooted in her upbringing, reflects a deeper engagement with the sacred and the profane.

In stark contrast, Russia today marks the 80th anniversary of Victory Day under the shadow of war in Ukraine. Once a solemn tribute to Soviet sacrifice, the Red Square parade has become a stage for Vladimir Putin’s historical revisionism, where memory is militarized to justify present aggression. Drone strikes near Moscow underscore the parade’s shifting symbolism—from unity and resilience to a spectacle of embattled power. Together, these moments reveal how power, identity, and memory are being redefined across political, religious, and cultural spheres.

¨The energy sector with its sword outstretched...

Gratitude is our heartbeat.

Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.

Help us stay loud:

One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.

One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).

Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.

Thank you for keeping the flame alive.

https://x.com/Germantoroghio/status/1919765056083947783

By Germán & Co.
Karlstad, Sweden | May 7, 2025

________________________________________

Introduction

As OPEC unleashes a strategic flood of crude oil into saturated markets, the global energy landscape quivers under the weight of retaliatory trade policies and resurgent ideological ghosts. This surge in production—a counterstrike against the U.S.-led shale revolution and escalating tariff wars—has thrust energy markets into chaos, with Brent crude prices plummeting to levels unseen in years. The cartel’s manoeuvres, timed against a backdrop of slowing growth and Washington’s protectionism, expose the brittle interdependence of modern geopolitics: petrostates scramble for revenues, American frackers teeter on insolvency, and maritime chokepoints grow tense as tankers glutted with cheap oil idle offshore. Meanwhile, half a world away, another ancient institution—the Catholic Church—grapples with its existential reckoning, its conclaves echoing with clashes as profound as those reshaping energy alliances.

Over the next few years, maritime logistics will adjust through new tanker builds, optimized shipping routes, port capacity expansion in growing regions, and infrastructure underutilization in declining ones. Insurers and shipping companies will navigate ongoing risks and compliance with environmental regulations.

Long-term Consequences

Long-term logistics could reflect permanent regionalization of oil trade, shifts toward shorter routes, development of alternative maritime channels (e.g., Arctic routes), specialized ship technologies, and new port hubs in strategic locations. Insurance and security strategies will evolve alongside geopolitical stability.

________________________________________

Conclusion

The confluence of rising OPEC production and an escalating global trade war is producing multidimensional shocks that extend far beyond the immediate fluctuations in commodity prices. These developments are reverberating across the global economic system, destabilizing energy markets, reconfiguring geopolitical alliances, and straining the logistical architecture that underpins international energy trade. In the short term, these shocks demand swift and adaptive policy interventions to stabilize supply chains, shield vulnerable economies, and prevent inflationary spirals. But the medium- and long-term implications are far more consequential: they point toward a deep structural transformation in how energy is produced, distributed, and politicized in the 21st century.

This transformation entails shifting from the post-Cold War assumptions of open markets and energy interdependence toward a more fragmented and securitized global order. Countries are increasingly re-evaluating their energy strategies, prioritizing national resilience over efficiency, and doubling down on domestic capacity, strategic reserves, and bilateral agreements. For energy-importing nations, the pressure to diversify sources and accelerate clean energy transitions has intensified as a response to environmental imperatives and as a strategic hedge against geopolitical vulnerability. Meanwhile, traditional energy exporters face renewed volatility, as market power becomes more precarious in a world where demand patterns shift and political risks rise.

At the geopolitical level, the breakdown of multilateral coordination—in trade, climate policy, and energy governance—is giving rise to a multipolar competition over technological dominance, resource access, and supply chain control. Emerging alliances and rivalries are being shaped not just by ideological affinities, but by infrastructural dependencies, critical mineral access, and regional security calculations. The global energy order is entering a phase of recalibration, where the lines between economic policy, national security, and environmental strategy are increasingly blurred.

Navigating this period of upheaval requires more than reactive policymaking; it calls for strategic foresight anchored in long-term thinking, institutional resilience, and international cooperation. Policymakers must balance the urgent need to manage volatility with the foresight to design adaptive frameworks that anticipate future disruptions. This includes strengthening regional energy integration, investing in flexible infrastructure, reinforcing diplomatic mechanisms, and embedding energy policy within broader strategies for sustainable development, technological sovereignty, and economic justice. Only through such a multifaceted and forward-looking approach can the international community hope to mitigate systemic risks while seizing the transformative opportunities emerging in this rapidly evolving global energy landscape.

Sources:

International Energy Agency (IEA) World Energy Outlook and energy system reports, along with our own notes.

Gratitude is our heartbeat.

Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.

Help us stay loud:

One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.

One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).

Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.

Thank you for keeping the flame alive.

https://x.com/Germantoroghio/status/1915515888515899541

Germán & Co 5/6/25 Germán & Co 5/6/25

The New Cold War: Electricity…

“Geopolitics and electricity are now closely interconnected in today’s world. In 2023, the global electricity industry was projected to generate an astounding $2.8 trillion in revenue, highlighting the immense scale and complexity of power generation, distribution, and retail operations worldwide. This enormous figure places the electrical power sector on par with the GDP of countries like France and the UK. It emphasizes that dominance in electricity markets translates to significant economic power and influence on an international scale…

Gratitude is our heartbeat.

Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.

Help us stay loud:

One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.

One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).

Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.

Thank you for keeping the flame alive.

https://x.com/Germantoroghio/status/1919765056083947783

By Germán & Co.
Karlstad, Sweden | May 6, 2025

________________________________________

Introduction

A silent global contest is underway, with electricity at its core. In boardrooms and war rooms alike, leaders treat kilowatt-hours and power grids as strategic assets, fueling an era some have dubbed a new Cold War over energy. Once seen as a mundane utility, electricity now shapes grand strategy – from climate pledges to trade wars. This high-stakes contest spans every continent, as nations and corporations vie over renewable technologies, grid networks, and critical minerals. The global electricity sector itself generates multi-trillion-dollar revenues annually (around $2.8 trillion in 2023), a scale approaching the GDP of the world’s third-largest economy. For perspective, this yearly electricity market is still an order of magnitude smaller than U.S. federal debt (over $32 trillion as of mid-2023) – a reminder that even the commanding heights of the power industry can seem modest next to the torrents of global finance. Yet in geopolitics, control over electric power – its sources, infrastructure, and innovation – has become priceless.

Electricity has transformed into a geostrategic currency as the world electrifies everything from transport to heating and shifts from fossil fuels to clean energy. Whoever leads in power technology – ultra-efficient solar panels, long-duration batteries, or resilient smart grids – will gain immense economic and political leverage. Likewise, nations rich in the minerals that enable the energy transition, or influential in the financing and standard-setting of energy projects, will find new clout on the world stage. This article examines the emerging global dynamics of the electricity sector across North America, Europe, Latin America, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. Drawing on institutional reports, academic studies, expert commentary, and official statistics, it analyzes how the electricity industry’s evolution is shaping alliances and rivalries. From Chinese solar dominance to African electrification, from the nuclear revival to cyber-sabotage of grids, these developments are illuminated as facets of a new great game – “The New Cold War: Electricity.”

________________________________________

A Multi-Trillion-Dollar Power Struggle

Electricity is the lifeblood of modern economies. In 2023, the global electricity industry’s revenues were estimated at roughly $2.8 trillion, reflecting the vast scale of power generation, distribution, and retail worldwide. This puts the electrical power sector on par with the GDP of France or the UK, underscoring that control over electricity markets means control over enormous economic value. While estimates vary (depending on whether one measures wholesale generation or retail sales), analysts project continued growth – possibly towards $4 trillion per year by the early 2030s as demand surges in developing regions and electrification accelerates. This trajectory suggests the electricity sector could soon rival oil & gas (which earned an unprecedented $4 trillion in profits in 2022 amid high prices) as one of the most lucrative components of the energy economy.

Such sums invite comparison with other gigantic financial figures. For instance, the United States’ national debt crossed $32 trillion in 2023. Framing electricity’s annual revenue against U.S. debt stock is illustrative: ten years of global power sales equate to America’s borrowing over centuries. This contrast highlights how deeply infrastructure investment (and sometimes debt financing) will be involved in the energy transition. It also emphasizes that while money can be created or borrowed, electrons must be generated and delivered in real time. No country can print electricity; it must build it. Thus, access to reliable, affordable power constrains the real economy in ways abstract finance does not. For geopolitics, this means that nations cannot bluff or sanction their way out of energy shortages – they must physically secure supply, whether through domestic capacity or international arrangements.

Electricity demand is enormous and rising. Global consumption hit about 24,500 terawatt-hours in 2023, up ~2.5% from the previous year, reflecting recovering industrial activity and growing use in Asia. Even mature markets are seeing new pulls on power: the proliferation of electric vehicles, data centers, and electrified heating is steadily expanding electricity’s role in society. The International Energy Agency (IEA) notes that electricity is “central to modern life” and will become even more pivotal as transport and buildings convert to electric technologies. Power generation is currently the largest source of CO₂ emissions globally, mainly due to coal-fired plants. This makes the electricity sector’s transformation the linchpin of climate change mitigation. Indeed, decarbonizing electricity – replacing coal and gas with wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear – is the foundation for achieving net-zero emissions targets. Clean electricity can then fuel cars, industries, and homes without carbon, a virtuous cycle underpinning the entire energy transition.

________________________________________

Electricity, Energy Transition, and Fiscal Policy

Because of its outsized climate impact, the power sector is at the heart of energy transition strategies. Efforts to address climate change have led to the rapid electrification of end-uses like transport and industry, which in turn drives a “massive increase in power demand” that must be met with renewable generation. This feedback loop – more electric vehicles and factories requiring more clean power – is triggering a dramatic transformation of power systems globally. Governments view the electricity sector as a vehicle for decarbonization, economic stimulus, and industrial policy. In recent years, numerous countries have rolled out green recovery programs and infrastructure bills (such as the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act and the EU Green Deal) that channel public funds and tax incentives into renewable electricity projects and grid upgrades. Such spending reflects a fiscal bet on electricity as a public good and a strategic asset, akin to how highways or telecommunications were treated in earlier eras.

At the same time, fiscal policymakers should be mindful of the budgetary impact of the energy transition. Many nations still subsidise electricity prices or the fuels used to generate power. It is essential to recognise the importance of Transfer Costs to the Competition (TCC). Reforming these subsidies can improve fiscal health, but they carry political risks, as seen when price hikes spark public backlash. Conversely, governments are exploring new revenue sources linked to electricity – for example, carbon pricing schemes or green taxes that can fund renewable investments. The scale of needed investment is staggering: achieving net-zero globally by mid-century would require clean energy investment to triple to around $4 trillion per year by 2030, much of which will flow into the power sector (renewables, grids, storage). Although private capital will provide a bulk of this, public financing and guarantees often seed projects, especially where market risks are high. Fiscal policy is thus being marshalled to support the build-out of low-carbon generation and the retirement of fossil-based assets. In sum, electricity has moved from a sectoral issue to a central economic strategy, with treasuries and central banks increasingly factoring energy transition risks (and opportunities) into their outlooks.

There is also an implicit economic reframing at play: commentators compare the multi-trillion annual electricity market with other monumental flows to convey the challenge’s scope. For instance, the global power sector’s annual revenues (~$3 trillion) are often likened to the $32 trillion U.S. debt to illustrate that decarbonizing power is a smaller hurdle financially than many assume. If the world can shoulder such enormous debts, the reasoning goes, it can mobilize comparable resources for clean energy – especially given the returns in avoided climate damage and enhanced energy security. Whether through carbon taxes, green bonds, or direct spending, integrating the electricity transition into fiscal frameworks is increasingly considered prudent governance. Once a backwater of regulated utilities, the electricity sector is now a major focus of finance ministers and central bankers. Its performance affects inflation (via energy prices), industrial competitiveness, and social stability.

________________________________________

Geopolitical Technology Wars: Renewables, Grids, and Storage

As electricity rises, technological leadership in power systems has become a flashpoint of international competition. In the mid-20th century, domination over oil resources defined geopolitical clout; in the 21st century, it may be domination over renewable energy technology and electricity infrastructure. Major powers are now locked in what can be described as a geopolitical tech war for supremacy in renewables, grid control systems, and energy storage. This is more evident than in the tensions between the United States and China.

Renewable technology – particularly solar photovoltaic (PV) panels and wind turbines – is a key battleground. Over the past two decades, China heavily invested in scaling up manufacturing, allowing it to capture the lion’s share of global solar panel production. As of the mid-2020s, China controls an estimated 80 %+ of the world’s solar PV supply chain (from polysilicon and wafers to finished modules). Western countries, which pioneered solar R&D, have seen much of the industry slip away to Asia. In response, the U.S. and Europe are deploying industrial policies (tariffs, local content rules, subsidies for domestic factories) to claw back some capacity or at least reduce dependence. Similarly, in battery technology, critical for energy storage and electric vehicles, China’s dominance is striking – roughly 70–75% of global lithium-ion battery production occurs in China. Chinese firms like CATL and BYD have become to batteries what Saudi Aramco is to oil. The U.S., EU, Japan, and others are pouring billions into battery gigafactories and next-generation chemistries (like solid-state batteries) to narrow this gap. This renewables race is akin to a modern-day space race: a contest for prestige, economic gain, and security of supply.

Grid control and smart grid electronics form another front. With the rise of digital controls, IoT sensors, and AI in managing electricity networks, concerns have grown about whose equipment runs the grid. Under President Trump, the U.S. moved to ban certain Chinese electrical gear from its power grid, citing cybersecurity fears. A 2020 order prohibited utilities supplying critical defense facilities from importing equipment like transformers from China. (Transformers are the backbone of grid transmission; inserting compromised hardware could potentially enable sabotage or spying.) Although the blanket ban was later modified, the U.S. continues to scrutinize Chinese-made components in critical grid infrastructure. Meanwhile, China’s State Grid Corporation, the world’s largest utility, aggressively exports its grid technology and standards through foreign contracts. Beijing has promoted ultra-high-voltage transmission lines and smart meter systems in Asia and Africa, aiming to set global technical standards that others follow. Competing standards evoke an earlier era when the U.S. and Soviet Union vied over technical norms across the developing world – only now it’s about internet-connected substations rather than radio broadcasting protocols.

Energy storage is the third key area, given its importance in balancing renewable power. Here, competition extends from batteries to emerging tech like green hydrogen, flow batteries, and other storage media. Nations that lead in storage innovation could dictate terms of the future electricity market, solving the intermittency of wind and solar and enabling export of stored energy. Companies like Tesla have driven a revolution in lithium battery deployment, from grid-scale “mega-packs” to home Powerwalls, which is challenging traditional utilities (more on that later). Chinese firms, however, are also top-tier in storage manufacturing, and South Korea and Japan are significant players. The “technology war” manifests in patent races, trade secrets disputes, and efforts to secure supply chains for components. For instance, both Europe and America have offered incentives for domestic battery supply chains (from lithium processing to cell production) to reduce reliance on Asian imports. The overlap of economic policy and national security is clear: whoever makes the world’s solar panels and batteries not only reaps profits but can also weaponize supply by withholding or dumping products. This dynamic has already surfaced – the U.S. imposed tariffs on Chinese solar panels years ago, accusing Beijing of unfair subsidies, while China at times restricted exports of certain metals crucial for making high-tech magnets and batteries as leverage in trade negotiations.

In sum, the new Cold War in technology has an energy core. It is not missiles or rockets being brandished, but solar panels, software, and subsidies. Victory is measured not by warheads but by market share and supply chain resilience. And unlike in the 20th-century Cold War, many other countries beyond the two superpower rivals are active participants – from South Korean battery giants to European wind turbine makers – each vying for slices of this booming electrification market.

________________________________________

China’s Energy Tech Dominance and Geo-Economic Leverage

At the center of this global power struggle is China, whose policies over the past decade have decisively reshaped the energy landscape. China today is an energy technology juggernaut, enjoying commanding leads in the manufacturing of renewable energy equipment and increasingly asserting influence over grid infrastructure abroad. This dominance gives Beijing significant geo-economic leverage – effectively a form of “soft power” (or hard power, depending on one’s view) in the emergent clean energy world order.

Consider solar PV: China’s share of global manufacturing capacity for each link in the solar supply chain – polysilicon refining, silicon wafer cutting, cell fabrication, and module assembly – ranges from 75% to 95% by various estimates. An IEA analysis bluntly stated, “China currently dominates global solar PV supply chains,” having shifted production away from former leaders in Europe, Japan, and the U.S.. Chinese firms leverage economies of scale and vertical integration, benefiting from domestic subsidies and a large home market. The result is lower costs worldwide – solar panel prices fell over 80% in the last decade – but also a precarious dependence. In 2023, Chinese solar panel exports hit record highs (114 GW worth of panels shipped in just the first half of the year), supplying projects from California to India. If geopolitical frictions or trade disputes were to curtail this flow, many countries’ solar rollout plans would face severe disruption. Beijing is well aware of this supply chain dependency; it has occasionally hinted at export controls on solar or battery inputs in retaliation to Western tech sanctions, underscoring that energy tech can be a strategic tool.

In batteries and electric vehicles (EVs), China also reigns supreme. As of 2024, Chinese battery champion CATL alone held about 38% of the global EV battery market share, with another Chinese firm, BYD, around 17%. All told, more than 70% of lithium-ion batteries are produced in China. Moreover, Chinese companies have aggressively invested upstream in critical minerals (acquiring stakes in lithium mines in Latin America and cobalt mines in Africa) and downstream in EV production (dominating not just components but complete electric car exports – Chinese brands made 62% of global EV sales in 2024). This dominance echoes how OPEC countries once controlled oil supply – except in this case it’s not a cartel but a combination of market prowess and state support that has concentrated the industry. The geopolitical implication is profound: as nations electrify transport and industry, they may find Chinese-made batteries and cars indispensable, potentially tempering their willingness to confront China on other issues.

Beyond manufacturing, China is expanding influence through its grand overseas infrastructure plan, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Energy projects are a cornerstone of BRI, including dozens of power plants (coal, hydro, solar, and wind) and long-distance transmission lines built across Asia, Africa, and the Middle East with Chinese loans and contractors. While Western-backed development banks often shy away from coal or large dams due to environmental concerns, Chinese banks have financed them, making Beijing a partner of choice for countries seeking rapid electrification. At the same time, China has begun exporting more renewable projects under BRI as well, and Chinese firms supply solar panels and grid equipment to many developing nations at competitive prices. This fosters a growing sphere of influence: equipment standards, regulatory practices, even workforce training in those grids may align with Chinese norms, potentially entrenching reliance on Chinese know-how for decades. In some ways, it parallels the Cold War pattern of superpowers exporting infrastructure and gaining client states, but now with fiber-optic cables and transmission towers instead of arms.

A vivid example of Chinese reach is State Grid Corporation of China (SGCC), the state-owned behemoth that manages most of China’s electricity distribution. SGCC is not only the world’s largest utility by revenue (over $540 billion in 2023), but it has also invested in utilities or grid concessions from Brazil to the Philippines and Italy. By owning stakes or providing technology, State Grid extends China’s influence into the energy governance of other countries. Smart grid technology (like advanced metering systems, load management software, etc.) provided by Chinese companies can be beneficial for hosts, but it also raises concerns analogous to Huawei’s role in 5G networks – will dependence on Chinese tech create security vulnerabilities or political strings? These debates are ongoing, with some recipient nations welcoming the low cost and technical expertise, and others pushing back under pressure from the U.S. or due to their own strategic calculations.

China’s dominance is not uncontested. Advanced economies are responding with both cooperative and defensive measures. For instance, the G7 nations launched a “Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment” (PGII, formerly the B3W initiative) aiming to mobilize $600 billion by 2027 for infrastructure in developing countries – pitched as a “values-driven, high-standard” alternative to BRIC. Part of the plan involves financing clean energy projects that meet stricter environmental and transparency criteria, seeking to counter China’s influence by offering countries another option. Yet, the scale and speed of China’s push, and its willingness to engage where others hesitate, means that in many parts of the world Chinese technology and capital remain the leading force powering new electrical capacity.

In summary, China has leveraged its industrial policy and financial clout to seize commanding heights in the new energy economy. This yields obvious economic rewards (jobs, exports, profits) and also strategic advantages – a form of energy hegemony in the making. Whether this leads to a sinocentric energy order or sparks a more collaborative global system depends on how other nations respond and how China wields its power: as a cooperative leader or monopolistic gatekeeper. The stage is set for an era of competition and negotiation around the central pillar of electricity power.

________________________________________

The Resurgence of Nuclear Energy (SMRs and Fusion Dreams)

Amid the focus on renewables, another energy source has been quietly (and sometimes not so quietly) re-entering the conversation: nuclear power. After decades of stagnation and public skepticism, atomic energy is seeing a tentative revival across multiple regions. This resurgence is driven by a confluence of factors – energy security concerns, the need for firm low-carbon power to complement intermittent renewables, and technological advances like small modular reactors (SMRs) that promise to address some of the cost and safety issues of traditional large reactors. At the same time, breakthroughs in fusion research are reviving hopes (however distant) of a radically new kind of nuclear power. Together, these trends point to nuclear regaining a seat in discussions of the 21st-century energy mix.

Several indicators underscore the renewed interest in nuclear energy. Globally, investment in nuclear has roughly doubled over the past decade, reaching about $65 billion in 2023, according to the IEA – a sharp reversal after years of decline. High-profile voices, including some environmental scientists and policymakers, now argue that without nuclear, many countries will struggle to meet climate targets while keeping grids reliable. Nuclear plants generate steady baseload power without carbon emissions, a valued attribute as coal plants are retired. Governments and utilities increasingly view nuclear as a sensible solution to decarbonize while ensuring firm power, if supportive policy frameworks and financing are in place.

The geopolitical dimension comes from who is building and exporting nuclear technology. While the U.S. and Western Europe pioneered nuclear energy in the 20th century, today China and Russia are the busiest builders of reactors. China has dozens of reactors under construction or in planning, aiming to expand its domestic nuclear capacity by 2030 dramatically

. Russia’s state firm Rosatom has become a major exporter of nuclear reactors (the VVER designs), building plants in countries like India, Turkey, and Bangladesh, often with generous financing. This gives Russia a long-term diplomatic foothold – operating a reactor implies decades of fuel supply and technical cooperation. In contrast, Western nuclear industries slowed down, with few new builds and the bankruptcy of companies like Westinghouse (now restructured). However, signs of a turnaround are visible: numerous new-build announcements have been made in the UK, France, Eastern Europe, and even the United States recently. Many of these are aspirational (actual construction is limited so far in the West), but the policy support is strengthening. Notably, the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act (2022) included subsidies for existing nuclear plants and credits for new advanced reactors, and the EU in 2022 controversially labeled nuclear as “green” (under certain conditions) in its sustainable finance taxonomy, potentially easing investment.

A key innovation driving excitement is the development of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). These are nuclear reactors typically producing a few tens or hundreds of megawatts (instead of ~1000+ MW for a conventional large reactor), designed to be built in factories and shipped to site, allowing for standardization and potentially lower costs. Countries like Canada, the UK, and the U.S. are frontrunners in SMR development – for example, Canada’s Ontario Power Generation has contracted to deploy an SMR by the early 2030s (GE Hitachi’s 300 MWe design) on an existing nuclear site. The concept is that SMRs can fill niches: powering remote regions, replacing coal plants using the same grid connections, or serving industrial sites. If they can be mass-produced, each unit’s cost could fall much like commercial aircraft or locomotives, rather than each reactor being a one-off mega-project. As of 2025, several SMR designs are in the licensing stage; none have yet been built in Western countries, though Russia has a floating SMR in operation and China is piloting one as well. Big tech companies have also shown interest – e.g., some data center operators and entrepreneurs like Bill Gates (with TerraPower) are investing in advanced reactor startups, seeing nuclear as a firm backup for renewable-heavy power grids.

Another sign of nuclear’s comeback is the shifting political narrative. High energy prices and gas shortages in Europe (exacerbated by the Ukraine crisis) led countries like the UK, Netherlands, and even once-nuclear-averse Belgium to extend reactor lifetimes or plan new ones for energy security. In Asia and the Middle East, new entrants are emerging: the UAE recently became the first Arab country to operate a nuclear plant (with South Korean help), and India has big nuclear expansion plans (we’ll detail India separately as a case). Even Japan, traumatized by Fukushima in 2011, is slowly bringing some reactors back online and exploring new designs, given its need for stable power and climate commitments.

No discussion of nuclear’s future is complete without mentioning the tantalizing prospect of nuclear fusion. Long dismissed as a mirage always “30 years away,” fusion took a leap into the headlines in late 2022 when U.S. scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Lab achieved the first ever fusion ignition – producing more energy from a fusion reaction than the energy input from lasers to start it. While on a tiny scale (output enough to boil a kettle), this experiment was hailed as a historic breakthrough. For the first time, the longstanding goal of scientific breakeven in fusion was reached, proving that controlled fusion is possible outside of stars or bombs. In 2023, the lab repeated the feat with slightly higher yield. These milestones have energized the fusion research community and a growing fusion startup industry (especially in the U.S. and UK), which is pursuing alternate approaches like magnetic confinement and aiming for a prototype power plant perhaps in the 2030s or 2040s. Governments too are upping support, seeing fusion as a game-changer for clean energy if it can be commercialized. Still, formidable scientific and engineering hurdles remain; fusion won’t realistically contribute to the 2030 climate targets, but its geopolitics are already in play – whichever nation or company patents viable fusion technology could command immense influence (and profits). International collaborations like ITER (the large fusion reactor project in France involving 35 nations) show a cooperative side of this race, whereas the U.S.-UK privately-led efforts vs. China’s state-led programs hint at competition.

In summary, nuclear energy is experiencing a renaissance of attention, if not a full-scale capacity renaissance. By 2030, we will likely see a handful of SMRs operating, a dozen or more large reactors under construction in new markets, and perhaps clearer direction on fusion’s viability. The key geopolitical questions will be: Can the West reclaim leadership or stay competitive in nuclear tech (preventing an exclusive Russo-Chinese dominance)? Will nuclear exports become tools of diplomacy (as with Russia’s influence via reactor deals)? And will public acceptance hold as climate urgency collides with nuclear anxieties? This nuclear subplot of the energy transition adds another layer to the New Cold War analogy – reminiscent of the original Cold War's atoms-for-peace campaigns and nuclear competitions, now repurposed for climate and energy battles.

________________________________________

Critical Minerals: The New Resource Chessboard

In the electrified, renewable-centric energy system, critical minerals are as strategically important as oil and gas were in the hydrocarbon age. Materials like lithium, cobalt, nickel, and rare earth elements are essential for batteries, wind turbine magnets, solar panels, and electric vehicle motors. As demand for these minerals soars, a geopolitical scramble is unfolding to secure supply, leading some analysts to dub it a “new scramble for commodities” or a resource chessboard with new winners and losers. The dynamics span Latin American salt flats to African mines and Chinese refineries, bringing development opportunities but also raising concerns about neo-colonial exploitation, resource nationalism, and environmental impact.

Take lithium, often called “white gold” for the role it plays in lithium-ion batteries. Global lithium demand has skyrocketed with the EV boom. Three countries in Latin America’s Lithium Triangle – Bolivia, Argentina, and Chile – together hold over half of the world’s known lithium resources (largely in high-altitude salt flats). Historically, Chile and Argentina have been among the largest producers (alongside Australia, which is currently #1). Now these nations see a chance to capture more value from this critical resource. In Chile, which has the world’s largest lithium reserves and is the #2 producer, a major policy shift occurred in 2023: President Gabriel Boric announced plans to nationalize Chile’s lithium industry. Under this strategy, future lithium projects must be public-private partnerships with state control, and an all-new state-owned lithium company will gradually take charge. The government argues this is the best way to ensure lithium wealth is used for sustainable development and not “wasted”. Practically, it means incumbents like SQM and Albemarle (a Chilean and a U.S. firm, respectively, currently producing lithium from Chile’s Atacama salt flat) will have to renegotiate terms by the end of their contracts (2030 for SQM) if they want to continue, likely giving the state a majority stake. This move was a shock to EV supply chains. It sent a message: countries are looking to protect their critical resources and extract greater benefit, even if it means unsettling investors. Chile’s step follows similar trends: Mexico nationalized its lithium deposits in 2022 by law, and Indonesia banned exports of nickel ore in 2020 to force companies to refine nickel (used in batteries) domestically.

For Bolivia, home to perhaps the largest single lithium resource in its Uyuni salt flat, the challenge has been turning resource into revenue – extraction is technically tricky and Bolivia’s government has long insisted on retaining state control (via Yacimientos de Litio Bolivianos). After years of limited progress, Bolivia in 2023 signed deals with Chinese firms to finally develop its lithium, illustrating China’s proactive hunt for minerals. Argentina has taken a more investor-friendly approach, welcoming foreign miners (from the U.S., China, Australia, etc.) to exploit its lithium brines with relatively light regulation. As a result, Argentina’s lithium output is poised to surge with many new projects, possibly overtaking Chile in production within a few years. This trio thus offers a case study in different governance models: Chile’s emerging resource nationalism via partnerships, Bolivia’s state-led but slower path, and Argentina’s open-door policy. All are trying to avoid the “resource curse” of the past and instead leverage lithium for industrialization – e.g., by spurring battery factories locally (Chile has a deal with China’s BYD to build a cathode plant).

Moving to cobalt and rare earth elements (REEs), we see other geopolitical fault lines. Cobalt, critical for many battery chemistries, is heavily concentrated in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), which produces around 70% of the world’s supply. That supply chain has been rife with problems: unsafe mining conditions, child labor in some artisanal mines, and the fact that Chinese companies have acquired control of a majority of DRC’s large cobalt mines (such as through the China Molybdenum’s ownership of the Tenke Fungurume mine). The U.S. and Europe are nervous about how reliant their EV industries are on DRC cobalt refined in China. This has prompted efforts to develop cobalt alternatives (like new battery types using less or zero cobalt) and to source from elsewhere (small cobalt outputs in places like Australia or Morocco, or potentially deep-sea mining, though that’s highly controversial). Some Western companies are also investing in “ethical cobalt” initiatives in the DRC, aiming to improve traceability and conditions to ensure the material isn’t tainted by abuses.

Rare earth elements – a group of 17 metals used in high-strength magnets (crucial for wind turbines and EV motors), among other electronics – present a classic chokehold scenario. China accounts for about 60% of global rare earth mining, but even more critically about 85-90% of rare earth processing into useful oxides and metals occurs in China. Decades ago, the U.S. and others got out of this messy business due to environmental costs, ceding it to China, which built a near-monopoly and has since periodically used it as leverage (famously restricting exports to Japan in 2010 during a territorial spat). Recognizing this vulnerability, countries are now scrambling to diversify rare earth supplies – reopening mines (e.g., the Mountain Pass mine in California is active again), funding separation facilities in the U.S. and Europe, and partnering with countries like Australia (a growing producer) or Vietnam, which has large untapped reserves. In 2023, for instance, the EU announced a Critical Raw Materials Act aiming to ensure at least 30% of its demand for key minerals is sourced from domestic or friendly sources by 2030, and the U.S. Defense Department has given grants to rare earth refining projects on American soil. These are attempts to de-risk supply chains that currently run overwhelmingly through China.

From a developing country perspective, the rush for critical minerals is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it offers economic growth and leverage opportunities: nations rich in lithium, cobalt, or rare earths suddenly find themselves courted by superpowers and corporations. This can translate to investment and infrastructure – for example, China often offers to build roads or power plants in exchange for mining rights. On the other hand, there’s a fear of repeating the old pattern where raw materials are extracted with little benefit to the local economy or environment. Thus, many insist on terms like local processing, joint ventures, or environmental safeguards. The ethical and ecological concerns are substantial: lithium brine extraction can deplete scarce water in arid regions; nickel and rare earth refining can cause toxic pollution; and mining in biodiverse areas risks ecological harm. There’s also a social justice angle – indigenous communities in South America or Africa are often most affected by mining projects and are demanding consultation and fair share of benefits.

We see a geopolitical layer in initiatives such as the Minerals Security Partnership led by the U.S., coordinating with allies like Canada, Australia, and Japan to secure critical mineral supplies (and offer financing to resource-rich countries as an alternative to Chinese deals). China, for its part, is solidifying its hold. Beyond direct mining investments, it has built an empire of processing facilities (refineries, chemical processors) that take raw ore from around the world and turn it into battery-grade material. Even if Western countries find new mines, they often send the ore to China for processing – a bottleneck that China controls.

On this resource chessboard, each major player has distinct advantages: China has processing and demand; the U.S. has financial muscle and technological innovation in reducing mineral intensity; Europe has market size and regulations that can shape supplier behavior; and many developing countries have the raw geology. The outcome will likely be a more multipolar supply chain. Still, the transition could be bumpy, with potential for trade tensions or even resource nationalism crises (imagine if an unstable government in a key country nationalizes and halts exports abruptly, sending mineral prices spiking). Unlike oil, which has a robust global market and trading system, many of these new minerals lack transparent markets and are often by-products of other mining (cobalt from copper, for instance), making them more susceptible to sudden shocks.

________________________________________

Case Study: Lithium in Latin America’s “Lithium Triangle”

Latin America’s Lithium Triangle – the high-altitude regions where Chile, Argentina, and Bolivia meet – provides a vivid case of how critical minerals are reshaping politics and international relations. The Atacama Desert in Chile and similar salt flats (salars) in Argentina and Bolivia contain huge brine reservoirs rich in lithium salts. Extracting lithium from brine involves pumping it to the surface and allowing it to evaporate in vast ponds, leaving lithium carbonate behind – a process that is cheap but water-intensive and slow.

Chile has been a lithium powerhouse for decades, with two companies (SQM, a Chilean firm partly owned by China’s Tianqi Lithium, and Albemarle, a U.S. firm) long dominating production under government licenses. President Boric’s 2023 nationalization announcement upended this status quo. While existing contracts won’t be revoked immediately, the clear direction is toward majority state ownership of all primary lithium operations. Notably, Chile isn’t expelling the private companies but rather inviting them to partner with the new state lithium enterprise – a model reminiscent of how Codelco (the state copper company) works alongside private miners. The goal is twofold: economic – to capture more profits for public use, and environmental – to ensure extraction is done sustainably in the fragile salar ecosystem. From a geopolitical view, Chile’s move may also be aimed at balancing interests: it can negotiate with both Western and Chinese companies from a stronger position. Indeed, after the strategy was unveiled, U.S. and Chinese stakeholders expressed hopes to continue in Chile under the new framework, indicating Chile will play the field to get the best terms.

Bolivia, with the world’s largest lithium resource, provides a contrast. It aimed for full state control, leading to slow development due to limited technology and capital. Recently, Bolivia has shifted to allow some foreign partnership: in 2023, a consortium of Chinese companies (including battery giant CATL) was selected to help YLB industrialize lithium extraction using a newer technology (direct lithium extraction) that could be less water intensive. This shows China’s persistent courtship of lithium-rich countries – offering investment and technological methods. Notably, a few years earlier, a German company had a tentative agreement with Bolivia which fell through amid political upheaval; the Chinese entry signals how geopolitical winds have shifted.

Argentina is the most market-oriented of the three. It has multiple foreign firms developing projects (Australian, Canadian, Chinese, American). The Argentinian provinces hold authority over resources and have been keen to attract investment to remote areas like Catamarca or Jujuy. Argentina’s challenge is infrastructure – getting the lithium out of the remote Andean areas to ports – and macroeconomic instability, which can deter investors. Nonetheless, Argentina has been the growth story: it’s expected to increase lithium output significantly by 2025 as several new mines come online. The government there has floated ideas of forming an OPEC-like lithium cartel with Chile and Bolivia to coordinate strategy, but differing policies have made that difficult. Still, they do engage in dialogue; all three are members of a regional alliance on lithium.

Major powers are certainly attentive. The United States, under its climate agenda, has identified lithium as a critical mineral and is investing in battery supply chains domestically, but it still needs imports. It has engaged diplomatically with lithium countries (for example, there were reports of U.S. officials lobbying Chile about fair treatment of U.S. companies in the new policy). China is deeply involved – beyond owning part of SQM, Chinese companies like Ganfeng have stakes in Argentinian projects, and as mentioned, a Chinese consortium in Bolivia. This competition sometimes frames lithium as a “Great Game” in South America, with the lithium triangle akin to a new Persian Gulf. However, unlike oil in the Gulf, these countries are assertively crafting the terms of engagement.

The environmental footprint in these salt flats is a concern that also has international ramifications. Indigenous communities, like the Atacameño in Chile, worry that lithium brine extraction draws down groundwater and threatens lagoons and biodiversity (flamingos on those salt flats, for instance). Companies are pressured to prove they can minimize water use and share benefits with locals. This introduces an ethical dimension: as the world clamours for lithium to fight climate change, it must reconcile that with local environmental justice for people in the Andes. Chile’s strategy explicitly cites protecting the environment and may push technological innovation (such as direct extraction methods that reinject water). How well these concerns are managed will influence the social license of lithium mining and perhaps set examples for other mineral-rich regions.

In conclusion, Latin America’s lithium saga encapsulates a broader theme: the energy transition is not just about shifting fuels but also about shifting geopolitical and economic relationships. Control over critical mineral supply chains is emerging as a key determinant of who **“wins” the new energy era. It truly resembles a chess match involving states and companies globally.

________________________________________

Infrastructure Under Threat: Cybersecurity and Energy Conflict

The vital importance of electricity infrastructure has made it a prime target in conflicts and a point of vulnerability in national security. As grids become digitized and interconnected, cybersecurity threats loom large – capable of causing mass disruption without a single shot fired. Physical attacks and sabotage also remain a danger, as seen dramatically in the case of the Nord Stream pipelines. Recent incidents from ransomware hacks to military strikes have driven home the message: protecting the power system is now a key element of national defense. Failing to do so can bring an economy to its knees or alter the course of a war.

One wake-up call came in December 2015, when a sophisticated cyberattack on Ukraine’s power grid caused blackouts for roughly 230,000 people. Hackers (later attributed to the Russian group “Sandworm”) remotely took control of distribution substations. They shut off the power, marking the first known instance of a cyberattack successfully disrupting an electrical grid. This was followed by another attack on Kyiv’s grid in 2016. These incidents, occurring amidst the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, demonstrated the reality of cyber warfare on civilian infrastructure. They also exposed how aging grid control systems could be manipulated if not properly secured. With Western experts' help, Ukraine has strengthened its grid defenses. Still, it remains a constant battle – especially with the full-scale war since 2022, where Russian forces have targeted Ukrainian power infrastructure both physically (through missiles) and potentially through malware. In fact, during the 2022 conflict, as Russia bombarded substations and power plants to plunge Ukraine into darkness, Ukrainian cyber units simultaneously worked to fend off malware like Industroyer2 aimed at their grid. This dual onslaught of kinetic and cyber attacks on energy infrastructure is unprecedented in modern war.

Another high-profile example was the Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack in the United States (May 2021). Though it involved an oil pipeline, not the electrical grid, it underscored the vulnerability of energy infrastructure to criminal hacking. A ransomware group (DarkSide) penetrated Colonial Pipeline’s IT network, prompting the company to temporarily shut down its pipeline operations. This major pipeline supplies ~45% of the U.S. East Coast’s fuel; its shutdown for several days led to panic buying of gasoline, local shortages, and price spikes. Images of long lines at gas stations in states like North Carolina evoked a sense of crisis reminiscent of the 1970s oil shocks. The U.S. government treated it as a national security issue, coordinating a response to help the pipeline restart. Ultimately Colonial Pipeline paid a multi-million-dollar ransom (most of which the FBI later recovered), but the incident catalyzed action in Washington: new cybersecurity requirements for pipeline operators, closer monitoring of critical infrastructure, and the realization that ransomware had evolved from a data-theft problem to a public safety threat.

Power grids are arguably even more vulnerable than pipelines because of their complexity and the necessity of balancing supply and demand in real time. A well-orchestrated cyberattack could cause cascading failures. Governments have grown increasingly vocal about shoring up defenses. In the U.S., the Biden administration issued directives for utilities to improve cyber practices and removed Chinese-made monitoring devices from some substations over spying fears. European countries, after seeing Ukraine’s experience, have red-teamed their own grids for weaknesses. Yet, the attack surface is enormous: thousands of generation plants, transformers, and control centers, many now connected for smart management, but sometimes not fully patched or secure. Even independent of nation-state attackers, criminal hackers could target utilities (there have been attempted ransomware attacks on electric utilities, some successful in temporarily disrupting business systems).

Another layer of threat is physical sabotage. The sabotage of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea in September 2022 is a stark example. Undersea explosions ruptured these major pipelines that connect Russia to Germany, in what NATO and EU officials called deliberate acts of sabotage. While those were gas pipelines (energy infrastructure in a broader sense), not electric, the effect was to eliminate a key piece of Europe’s energy network. Had those been electric interconnectors (subsea power cables) instead of gas pipes, the impact would be similarly severe for connected countries. In fact, some nations are now heightening surveillance of critical undersea cables and cross-border power lines, recognizing they could be targets in a conflict scenario. In an interconnected Europe, for example, sabotaging a few high-voltage lines or cables could isolate a country’s grid or cause blackouts across multiple states.

Electricity infrastructure has even become a tactical target for terrorists or saboteurs at smaller scales. For instance, in December 2022, a deliberate shooting attack on electrical substations in North Carolina knocked out power for days to tens of thousands – presumably the work of unknown domestic actors. This kind of low-tech attack (rifle fire at transformers) demonstrated that not all threats are cyber; sometimes old-fashioned sabotage is easier and just as effective at causing disruption.

All these incidents drive home a geopolitical reality: attacking the enemy’s energy supply is once again a strategy, whether that enemy is an opposing nation or simply a government one wants to destabilize. During the original Cold War, each side worried about the other bombing power plants. Today, the means might be malware or stealthy explosives, but the effect is similar. The Colonial Pipeline hack showed how even non-state actors can, unintentionally or not, create national security crises. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s experience shows state actors will directly target grid infrastructure to weaken adversaries – essentially weaponizing winter by freezing cities in the dark.

In response, countries are pursuing greater grid resilience and redundancy. This includes measures like more interconnections (so if one line goes down, alternatives carry the load), stockpiling critical spare equipment (large transformers, which are usually custom and lead-time of months to replace, are a particular concern), and even moving toward decentralized generation (rooftop solar, battery storage) which could make the system less vulnerable to single points of failure. Ironically, the push for resilience and domestic control can sometimes clash with efficiency goals – for instance, a globally optimized supply chain for transformers might be cheaper, but nations now want domestic manufacturing to avoid supply cut-offs in crisis.

Cyber norms are also a subject of international discussion. There have been calls to treat attacks on critical infrastructure as off-limits, akin to chemical weapons, but so far, no robust treaty exists, and enforcement is tricky. Attribution (figuring out who did a cyberattack) is often murky, which complicates deterrence.

In short, the more vital electricity becomes, the more it becomes a target—making security and resilience a paramount concern. The new Cold War in electricity is not only about building the most advanced grids and energy systems but also about protecting them from sabotage. A nation could have the greenest, most high-tech grid in the world and still be brought low if it cannot defend that grid from malware or missiles. This intertwining of energy and security strategies is a hallmark of our era.

________________________________________

Case Study: Nord Stream 2 – Fossil Fuel Lifeline or Renewable Millstone?

The saga of Nord Stream 2 – a recently built gas pipeline from Russia to Germany that became entangled in geopolitical conflict – offers a compelling symbol of the old and new energy orders at odds. Nord Stream 2 was designed to carry natural gas across the Baltic Sea, doubling the direct capacity of its predecessor (Nord Stream 1) and supplying Germany and Europe with abundant Russian gas for decades to come. Proponents saw it as a commercial project to enhance energy security by providing cheap gas; critics saw it as a geopolitical weapon that would increase dependence on Russia while bypassing Ukraine (which would lose transit fees and leverage).

By late 2021, the pipeline’s construction was complete – an $11 billion project ready to go. Yet it sat idle, awaiting regulatory certification in Germany and embroiled in political controversy. Then, in February 2022, on the eve of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the German government dramatically halted the certification of Nord Stream 2. Chancellor Olaf Scholz suspended the project in response to Russia’s recognition of breakaway regions in Ukraine, a clear signal of Germany pivoting away from reliance on Russian energy due to security concerns. This was a stunning reversal for a country that, just months before, had argued Nord Stream 2 was purely economic. The looming war made plain that energy interdependence with an aggressive Kremlin was a vulnerability.

The war itself then sealed Nord Stream 2’s fate. By September 2022, with Russia weaponizing gas supply (cutting deliveries through other routes) and Europe scrambling for alternatives, a mysterious sabotage attack blew holes in Nord Stream 2 (and Nord Stream 1) under the Baltic. The pipelines ruptured, spewing gas into the sea in an act widely labeled as intentional sabotage – though investigations have not definitively pinned responsibility on any actor, and theories abound. Regardless of who did it, the outcome is that Nord Stream will likely never operate; it is literally broken and figuratively a broken dream of energy partnership.

Nord Stream 2 thus serves as a symbolic pivot point. It represented the 20th-century fossil fuel paradigm – large, fixed infrastructure tying producers and consumers in long-term codependence, underpinned by the assumption that trade would bring stability. Germany’s bet (shared by some in Europe) was that Russian gas would be a reliable foundation, even enabling the phase-out of coal and nuclear domestically. But that bet failed dramatically, and in doing so, it underscored the arguments of those who said renewables plus diversification would be a safer path. Indeed, after 2022, Germany and Europe accelerated efforts to build LNG terminals (to get gas from diversified suppliers like the U.S. or Qatar in the short term) and pushed even harder on renewables deployment and energy efficiency to reduce gas dependence overall. In effect, Nord Stream 2’s paralysis became a catalyst for faster green transition in Europe.

The pipeline also became a diplomatic flashpoint between Western allies. The U.S. had strongly opposed Nord Stream 2 for years, imposing sanctions on companies involved, arguing it would give Moscow undue leverage and undermine Ukraine. Many European countries (Poland, Baltic states) likewise feared it. Germany’s insistence on completing it (until the U-turn in 2022) caused rifts in NATO and EU unity. Some described Nord Stream 2 as a project that weakened the West’s stance vis-à-vis Russia even before it delivered a single molecule of gas. That it was halted only when tanks were about to roll shows how energy security considerations can suddenly override economic interests when the strategic context changes. It also perhaps taught a lesson: relying on an autocratic supplier for a critical share of energy can carry heavy strategic costs.

In contrast to this fossil fuel saga, consider a hypothetical: what if the tens of billions spent on Nord Stream 2 had been spent on a massive North Sea offshore wind build-out, or on solar and battery infrastructure across Germany? Such investments might have yielded more secure and sustainable energy by 2022, albeit with their own challenges. Nord Stream 2 in hindsight appears as a cul-de-sac – a pipeline to nowhere in a world turning away from hydrocarbons. For environmentalists, its demise is welcome (less fossil fuel lock-in); for industries that craved its gas, it’s a loss that caused short-term pain (high energy prices in 2022).

Yet Europe adapted: by 2023, Europe had replaced mainly Russian gas through LNG imports and demand reduction, and it pressed on with renewables. Nord Stream’s wreck at the bottom of the sea is a potent image of how the old energy order is being left behind under the waves, as the continent sails toward a cleaner, albeit challenging, energy future. It also remains a cautionary tale of infrastructure becoming a hostage to geopolitics – a fate the electricity sector hopes to avoid through prudent planning and by not putting all eggs in one basket, whether that basket be a single pipeline or a single foreign supplier of critical equipment.

________________________________________

Competing Visions and Standards: Belt and Road vs. G7 Initiatives

Infrastructure – especially energy infrastructure – is not only an economic endeavor but also a projection of values and influence. In the 2020s, two broad visions for global infrastructure development have crystallized, often seen in competition: China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and a set of Western-aligned initiatives spearheaded by the G7 (Group of Seven) countries, such as the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII). These competing frameworks are vying to set the standards and norms for building the next generation of power plants, grids, and connectivity projects around the world.

The Belt and Road Initiative, launched by China in 2013, is one of the most ambitious infrastructure drives in history, spanning Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America. Energy projects – from coal plants in Pakistan to hydropower dams in Africa and solar farms in Latin America – are a major component of BRI financing. China’s proposition to developing countries is straightforward: we can build what you need quickly and often cheaply, with generous loans and without the stringent conditions Western lenders might impose (like governance or environmental reforms). This has been attractive to many governments eager to expand electricity access or industrialize. However, BRI has been criticized for exporting lower environmental standards – for example, Chinese banks financed a number of coal-fired power plants overseas at a time when multilateral banks had stopped doing so. Some of those plants risk becoming stranded assets as global climate policy tightens. In recent years, China adjusted its stance, pledging in 2021 to stop building new coal plants abroad (a significant shift), and BRI energy investment has increasingly shifted to renewables and gas.

The G7 response, initially dubbed “Build Back Better World” (B3W) in 2021 and later formalized as PGII, seeks to offer an alternative by mobilizing $600 billion by 2027 for global infrastructure. The emphasis, as stated by U.S. President Biden, is on a “transparent, high-standard” approach that reflects Western values. This implies projects with rigorous environmental safeguards, no corruption, sustainable financing (to avoid debt traps), and alignment with climate goals (favoring clean energy). The initiative explicitly positions itself not just as charity, but as a strategic move: “we haven’t offered a positive alternative that reflects our values… until now,” a senior U.S. official said when launching it. Implicitly, this is about countering China’s growing influence in Africa, Asia, and elsewhere by ensuring countries have other options than BRI funds.

Europe has its own arm – the EU’s “Global Gateway” initiative similarly promises tens of billions for sustainable infrastructure and has been coordinating with the G7’s PGII. There’s also the Blue Dot Network (led by the U.S., Japan, and Australia) which aims to certify projects that meet high quality standards, like an OECD seal of approval, to guide investors.

The tension between these visions often plays out project by project. For instance, consider an African country looking to expand electricity supply: China might offer a package to build a large hydro dam or a transmission line with soft loans and a rapid timeline, whereas Western financiers might come with a mix of grants, private investment, and conditions like feasibility studies, social impact assessments, etc. The host country will weigh speed and cost against the value of safeguards and long-term terms. There have been instances where countries initially went with BRI projects but hit issues (sustainability of debt or local pushback) and then sought Western help, and vice versa.

A prominent example is power grids and connectivity in Africa. China has funded and built numerous backbone transmission lines and distribution networks across sub-Saharan Africa, often bundled with generation projects (like in Zambia, Chinese loans built both a hydropower station and the lines to connect it). Western initiatives, by contrast, might focus on new off-grid solutions (like U.S. programs funding solar home systems in rural areas) or cross-border market integration (e.g., the World Bank supporting an East Africa power pool for countries to trade electricity). The difference in approach sometimes reflects a philosophical split: BRI often emphasizes hardware – physical assets, built fast. The G7-style projects emphasize software – the regulatory frameworks, capacity building, and ensuring projects are future-proof and community-accepted, even if that means a slower build.

Standards also come into play in technology. For example, smart grid standards: If a country upgrades to smart meters and the equipment is Chinese, it might use protocols unique to that ecosystem; Western providers use different standards. Over time, this could lead to spheres of technological influence. Another area is nuclear power standards: Russia and China have their reactor designs and safety standards which they export; the West has its own. If a country buys a Chinese reactor, its regulatory system and supply chain will align with China’s standard, and vice versa.

Even environmental and social standards are a competitive domain. China has been improving its green financing rules (encouraging BRI projects to be greener), partly in response to critique and partly because it sees the huge economic opportunity in exporting renewable tech. Meanwhile, the G7’s selling point is that their projects won’t bulldoze villages or saddle countries with white elephant projects – a subtle dig at some BRI ventures that arguably overbuilt or ignored local needs.

A critical question is: will these two visions work at cross purposes, or can they be complementary? In some places, they might coexist – for instance, a country could take Chinese money for a transmission line but European money for a solar farm, and use both. In theory, there is far more infrastructure need ($40+ trillion by 2035 in developing nations) than either side alone will provide, so there is room for all if coordination occurs. But politically, the narrative of competition persists. Countries like India, which are courted by both sides, leverage this for better deals (India largely stayed away from BRI to preserve strategic autonomy and instead partners with Japan or others for different projects).

For the beneficiary countries, having multiple options is beneficial – they can negotiate better terms and avoid over-reliance on one partner. But it can also lead to fragmentation if different sets of standards and non-interoperable systems get built. Ideally, global forums (like the G20 or UN) could encourage some harmonization – e.g., agree on a baseline that all major financiers, Chinese or Western, won’t fund egregiously polluting projects, or all will ensure transparency to avoid corrupt deals. There has been some movement: China has talked about a “Green BRI” and canceled some coal plants; Western institutions, after initially shunning anything to do with fossil fuels, realized in 2022 that some temporary support for gas in poor countries might be needed for energy access, indicating pragmatism.

Infrastructure development has become a stage for geopolitical competition, with electricity projects front and center. The “wiring up” of the Global South in the coming decade – whether done with Chinese cables or G7-funded solar panels – will shape economic loyalties and influence for generations. It’s a new version of the development contests of the Cold War, when the U.S. and Soviet aid duelled to build dams and power stations in emerging nations. This time the lines are drawn not around ideology per se, but around governance models and environmental philosophies embedded in concrete and steel.

________________________________________

Shifting Alliances and Emerging Players

The traditional energy order – dominated by a few superpowers and oil-rich nations – is evolving into a more complex tapestry of regional alliances and new players in the electricity domain. As countries pursue their own paths in the energy transition, we are seeing the rise of regional power pools, strategic partnerships around clean tech, and even corporate actors influencing geopolitics. In this section, we explore a few notable cases: India’s balancing act with nuclear and solar, Africa’s quest for electrification amid external suitors, the Middle East’s pivot to renewables, and the disruptive role of companies like Tesla vis-à-vis traditional utilities.

India stands out as an emerging giant that straddles multiple aspects of the electricity geopolitics. With the world’s third-largest electricity consumption (after China and the U.S.) and a population of 1.4 billion aspiring to higher living standards, India’s energy decisions have global significance. India has set an ambitious target of 500 GW of non-fossil power capacity by 2030 (from about 165 GW non-fossil currently, which includes renewables and nuclear) – a cornerstone of its climate commitments. This includes hundreds of gigawatts of solar and wind. Indeed, India has rapidly expanded solar power, reaching roughly 70 GW of solar installed by 2023 and aiming for ~280 GW by 2030. It has built massive solar parks (one of the world’s largest, Bhadla Solar Park in Rajasthan, exceeds 2 GW) and driven down costs through competitive auctions. On the international stage, India co-founded the International Solar Alliance (ISA) with France, positioning itself as a leader of the “solar south,” providing training and resources to other sunshine-rich countries. This is a soft power play by India, using solar diplomacy to enhance its global standing.

Simultaneously, India maintains an interest in nuclear energy. Historically cut off from nuclear trade due to its non-signatory status to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, India secured a special waiver in 2008 via a deal with the U.S., allowing it to engage in nuclear commerce. Since then, India has inked agreements with Russia, France, and others for reactor projects. Russia has been a prominent partner: it built India’s Kudankulam nuclear plant in Tamil Nadu (two reactors operating, more under construction) and plans for additional units are underway. France’s EDF has been in talks to build six large EPR reactors at Jaitapur (which would be one of the biggest nuclear projects globally), though final terms are still under negotiation. The United States (via Westinghouse) has discussed setting up reactors in Andhra Pradesh, though that too has moved slowly. Meanwhile, India’s domestic nuclear program, including a fleet of indigenously designed pressurized heavy water reactors (PHWRs), continues modest expansion. Most recently, India is exploring SMRs as well, allocating funding for developing at least five indigenous SMR designs by 2030. This multi-faceted approach shows India hedging its bets: it wants a diversified electricity mix (not over-reliant on any one source or supplier) and also seeks to localize as much manufacturing and expertise as possible (e.g., insisting on technology transfer in deals). Geopolitically, India leverages its partnerships – maintaining good ties with Russia for legacy and strategic autonomy reasons, collaborating with Western nations for advanced tech and climate alignment, and even cooperating with Japan and Australia in forums like the Quad on emerging energy technologies. India’s stance is very pragmatic and multipolar – it won’t be bound to one bloc. For instance, while it buys Russian reactors and oil, it also increasingly buys U.S. solar and wind tech and partners with Europe on grids and battery standards.

Africa as a region is another critical theater. The continent has over 600 million people without access to electricity, and its population is growing fastest. This represents not just a moral imperative but also a huge future market. Various powers are courting African countries with offers to help develop their energy systems. China has been in the lead in terms of sheer investment, having funded numerous projects as part of BRI. These include massive hydropower dams (like Ethiopia’s Grand Renaissance Dam’s financing partly via Chinese banks, or Guinea’s Kaleta dam built by Chinese firms), solar farms in North Africa, and transmission lines connecting countries. The U.S. initiative “Power Africa” (launched under President Obama) set out to leverage private investment to add tens of thousands of MW of generation and connect millions to electricity – it has made progress mainly in facilitating deals for renewables and gas plants, though not on the scale of need. The EU and former colonial powers like France and the UK also run programs for African energy access, often focusing on green energy and cross-border interconnections (like linking the power pools of Southern and East Africa).

One interesting development is the concept of African Power Pools – regional grids that allow countries to trade electricity. The Southern African Power Pool (SAPP) is relatively advanced, with South Africa trading power with neighbors (often exporting surplus coal power or importing hydro from Mozambique, for example). The East African Power Pool is in earlier stages, planning interlinks between Ethiopia (with huge hydro potential), Kenya (geothermal and wind growth), and Tanzania/Uganda. The West African Power Pool aims to connect coastal countries with the Sahel, potentially bringing solar from Niger or gas from Nigeria to far-flung areas. Donors like the World Bank and African Development Bank support these as they can improve reliability and lower costs through economies of scale. Geopolitically, these pools encourage regional cooperation (which can be stabilizing) but also create interdependence (e.g., if one country has turmoil, it might affect power to its neighbors).

Emerging players within Africa include countries like Morocco, which has become a renewable energy frontrunner (building one of the world’s largest concentrated solar farms at Noor and planning cable links to export solar energy to Europe), and Kenya, which already generates ~90% of its electricity from renewables (mix of hydro, geothermal, wind) and aspires to be a clean energy hub. South Africa, the continent’s most industrialized nation, is in a tough transition: heavily coal-dependent and suffering power shortages due to aging plants, it secured an $8.5 billion “Just Energy Transition” partnership with Western nations to help shift from coal to renewables while supporting affected workers – a model that might be replicated elsewhere if successful. On the critical minerals front, countries like the DRC (cobalt) and Zambia (copper) are trying to ensure they benefit more from the coming boom (Zambia and DRC have talked of an African value chain for EV batteries, rather than just exporting raw ore).

Moving to the Middle East, historically the epicenter of oil geopolitics, we see interesting shifts. Gulf oil states – notably Saudi Arabia and the UAE – while still oil-rich, are investing in solar energy and even nuclear as part of diversifying their economies and hedging against a post-oil future. The UAE’s Barakah nuclear plant (built by South Korea) is now operational, giving the Arab world its first nuclear electricity. Saudi Arabia has huge solar plans (it’s building massive solar farms and also eyeing nuclear reactors down the line). Both countries are also touting plans for green hydrogen (using solar/wind to electrolyze water) as an export commodity in a future where they might ship ammonia or hydrogen instead of crude. They remain major players in OPEC, so they have a foot in both old and new energy domains. The Middle East is also seeing new tensions and collaborations: Iran, under sanctions, has faced difficulties maintaining its grid (and has frequent blackouts, plus its own controversial nuclear program for power and potentially weapons). The Israel-Arab normalization deals have opened avenues for regional energy sharing – for instance, Israel’s tech in solar could pair with Gulf investment. Egypt, with its populous market and mix of gas and renewables, has become a key electricity exporter in North Africa (it sells power to Sudan and is planning subsea cables to Saudi and Europe). And there’s the contentious case of Iraq and Lebanon – where power shortages are severe and geopolitics (like U.S.-Iran rivalry) affect which countries can supply electricity or fuel. Iraq has balanced importing electricity from Iran with trying to integrate with the Gulf Cooperation Council grid.

Now, a non-state but highly influential player: Tesla (and other cleantech companies). Tesla is often cited as emblematic of how new entrants can disrupt traditional energy. Tesla’s energy division produces solar panels (after acquiring SolarCity) and battery storage systems in addition to cars. In places like Australia, Tesla built a 100 MW battery farm (the Hornsdale Power Reserve) that proved immensely useful in stabilizing the grid and undercutting the need for gas “peakers.” Incumbent utilities initially scoffed at such batteries; now they are racing to install their own. Tesla also markets its Powerwall batteries to homeowners with solar panels, enabling them to store energy and potentially detach somewhat from the grid. This concept of the distributed grid – where millions of homes and electric cars with batteries act as a combined virtual power plant – is a direct challenge to the century-old model of centralized utilities.

Elon Musk once quipped that he’s “not actually a fan of disruption for its own sake” when it comes to utilities – implying that Tesla wants to work with grids to enhance them. Indeed, Tesla’s strategy has been twofold: sell products to customers that reduce reliance on utilities, and sell big solutions to utilities to help them manage the new loads (like utility-scale batteries). Utilities have felt the heat, especially in sunny markets like California, Australia, Spain, etc., where rooftop solar plus battery means customers buy much less electricity. The “utility death spiral” is a feared scenario: as more people generate their own power, utilities must charge remaining customers more to maintain the grid, which in turn encourages even more defection from the grid. Regulators are trying to update business models to avoid this outcome (for example, by allowing utilities to profit from operating networks and services, rather than kilowatt-hour sales alone).

Tesla is just one company – but it’s representative of a trend where tech companies intersect energy. Google, Amazon, and other data giants are huge buyers of renewable energy directly, sometimes building their own energy assets. Auto companies entering EVs are also entering the electricity business whether they like it or not, as EVs can double as storage devices. Even oil companies are now investing in power: e.g., BP and Shell have acquired utilities and solar developers in anticipation of an electric future.

Tesla vs. utilities can also be seen as a cultural clash: Silicon Valley vs. the conservative power industry. One side moves fast and breaks things; the other must keep the lights on 24/7 with no margin for error. But increasingly, they must work together (virtual power plant programs, EV charging coordination with grids, etc.). Still, in geopolitics, if Tesla’s model proliferates worldwide, it could decentralize power (literally and figuratively), empowering individuals and communities while weakening traditional energy gatekeepers. Countries supportive of such innovation might leap ahead in adoption; those protecting legacy utilities might lag and face restive consumers.

Lastly, consider alliances of emerging economies. Groups like the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) occasionally talk about energy cooperation, for example, ideas of a shared strategy on critical minerals or green finance. In Latin America, countries are sharing lessons on integrating renewables (Chile and Uruguay have been leaders; others are copying). There’s also the possibility of South-South cooperation: India investing in African solar, or China helping Latin America with grids (which it is doing).

A specific emerging player is Latin American lithium producers forming a bloc – after Chile’s policy change, Chile and Argentina started collaborating more on lithium policy, and Mexico (though it has little production yet) wants in on discussions. They might coordinate royalty rates or exchange best practices, which could emulate OPEC’s resource diplomacy albeit in a looser sense.

In essence, the map of energy alliances is being redrawn: not just OPEC and the International Energy Agency's club of importers, but new constellations around battery materials, clean power know-how, and grid integration. The power sector’s transformation is giving rise to new power brokers – from India setting solar benchmarks to tech firms altering consumption patterns.

________________________________________

Financing the Global Power Shift: Green Capital and Institutions

Transforming the world’s electricity systems requires an unprecedented mobilization of capital. Trillions of dollars will need to be invested in generation capacity (solar farms, wind parks, reactors), grid infrastructure, and energy storage in the coming decades. How this transformation is financed – and who provides the money – is a crucial piece of the geopolitical puzzle. Financial structures are evolving to meet the challenge, from the explosive growth of green bonds to innovative public-private partnerships. Traditional institutions like the IMF and World Bank are also adapting (slowly) to better support clean energy, amid calls for them to do much more.

One of the most striking trends has been the rise of the green bond market. Green bonds are debt instruments where proceeds are earmarked for environmentally beneficial projects (often renewable energy or efficiency projects). 2023 global green bond issuance reached a record $575 billion, up 10% from the previous year. This is a dramatic increase from almost nothing a decade ago. Europe has led the way (accounting for over half of issuance), with governments like France, Germany, and the UK issuing sovereign green bonds to fund their climate investments. Even developing countries have joined; e.g., Chile and India both issued their first green bonds in recent years. Corporates and utilities are also big issuers – renewable energy companies raise capital this way, and even traditional utilities are now using green bonds to fund their transition (one World Bank report noted that 81% of utilities’ bond issuance in a recent year were labeled green). The appeal is twofold: it taps into the huge investor appetite for ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) investments, and it often comes with slightly favorable terms or a broader investor base. By 2024, sustainable bonds (green, social, sustainability-linked combined) are forecast to approach 14% of global bond issuance, indicating mainstreaming.

However, bond markets primarily serve countries and companies that already have access to finance. Lower-income nations often don’t have the credit ratings to issue large bonds or the projects ready to absorb that capital. This is where public finance and development banks come in. The World Bank and regional development banks (like the African Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, etc.) historically funded a lot of power infrastructure – though in the past this skewed towards fossil projects (diesel generators, coal plants) and big hydro. Today, most of these institutions have shifted to funding renewables, grid expansion, and energy access. For instance, the World Bank’s lending for renewables and efficiency has grown and it has largely stopped financing coal. It also supports policy reforms, such as helping countries design electricity tariffs that sustain utility finances or implement regulatory frameworks to attract independent power producers.

Yet, there’s criticism that these institutions are not moving fast enough. Developing countries argue that the World Bank in particular is still too risk-averse and slow in disbursing funds for the energy transition. There have been calls (notably by Barbados’s Prime Minister Mia Mottley in the “Bridgetown Initiative”) to overhaul global financial institutions to better address climate change – for example, by offering debt relief or more low-interest loans to countries that invest in resilience and clean energy. In response, the World Bank and IMF have started to integrate climate into their programs more. The IMF now looks at climate vulnerabilities in its assessments for some countries, and is offering a Resilience and Sustainability Trust that gives cheap loans for climate-related investments. Still, the scale is small relative to need.

Private investment will provide the bulk of capital for the power transition, but often it only flows when de-risked by public policies. A common model is public-private partnerships (PPPs) or blended finance – where some public money (or guarantees) absorb the top layer of risk, making it attractive for private investors to fund the rest. For example, a development bank might guarantee part of a solar project’s revenues, so that a commercial bank is willing to lend. Or a government “green bank” might take on early-stage project risk and then crowd in pension funds once the project is shovel-ready. We see a proliferation of such mechanisms: green investment banks, climate funds, and insurance programs for political risk (to protect against, say, a government reneging on a power purchase agreement).

Multilateral climate funds like the Climate Investment Funds (CIFs) or the Green Climate Fund (GCF) also play a role by providing concessional finance for clean energy in developing countries, often in conjunction with the World Bank or local banks. For instance, they might buy down the interest rate on loans for a solar park in Kenya, making the project viable.

At the same time, traditional fossil fuel finance is pulling back – many major banks and insurers announced restrictions on coal financing, and some on unconventional oil/gas. This means more capital is being directed at clean energy simply because the dirty options are limited. But the paradox is, in some emerging markets fossil projects still find funding (often from Chinese banks or smaller trade financiers) if clean alternatives seem too slow to materialize. So aligning global finance with climate goals is a work in progress.

Sovereign wealth funds and oil money are interesting wildcards. Gulf countries’ sovereign funds (like Saudi’s Public Investment Fund, UAE’s Mubadala) are investing in renewable ventures domestically and abroad, seeing it as an diversification. Even some oil companies are investing heavily in power: for example, France’s TotalEnergies has bought stakes in solar farms in India and wind in the North Sea, becoming a renewable investor. These shifts can bring big dollars, but also raise questions: is it greenwashing or a real pivot? We’ve seen European oil majors issuing transition bonds to fund their renewables expansion.

Energy subsidies and pricing also factor into financing. Many countries spend big sums subsidizing electricity (often to keep it affordable for citizens). According to the IMF, fossil fuel subsidies (including underpriced electricity) globally run into hundreds of billions. Reforming these could free up fiscal space to invest in clean energy or support the poor in other ways. However, subsidy reform is politically tough (people riot when prices go up). So some nations are considering swapping subsidies – e.g., removing general subsidies but giving targeted cash transfers or subsidizing clean alternatives (like efficient appliances or solar kits) for the poor.

A notable development is the concept of “just transition” finance – money specifically aimed at helping coal-dependent communities or nations transition. South Africa’s aforementioned $8.5b package from Western countries is one example; similar ideas are being floated for Indonesia and India (to help retire coal plants early, for instance). If those materialize, they could become a template where wealthy nations essentially pay part of the cost for emerging economies to pivot away from coal faster than they otherwise would.

Finally, international financial diplomacy is active: forums like the G20 have an Energy Transition Working Group focusing on financing mechanisms; the issue of compensating developing countries (loss and damage, etc.) intersects with energy investment.

From a global perspective, capital is not in short supply – the world’s pension funds, insurers, banks, and sovereign funds manage tens of trillions of dollars. The challenge is matching that capital with projects in countries and sectors where it’s needed, at the scale and speed required. This often comes down to reducing political, currency, and technology risks. That’s why creative financial structures and strong international institutions are crucial. Whether it’s green bonds linking European investors to Asian wind farms, or the World Bank being re-tooled as a “climate bank,” or carbon credits helping finance a new transmission line, myriad tools are on the table.

In essence, the battle against climate change and for energy transition will be won or lost on the balance sheets. The geopolitics of electricity increasingly includes the geopolitics of green finance – who pays, who profits, and under what conditions. Countries that manage to attract and deploy capital effectively will surge ahead in building future power systems; those that cannot may fall behind or remain stuck with obsolete infrastructure. This financial race is quieter than the scramble for lithium or the war of sanctions, but it is no less decisive.

________________________________________

Ethical and Social Dilemmas of the Energy Transition

Behind the promising narrative of a cleaner electrified future lie a host of ethical and social concerns. The shift to renewable electricity and high-tech grids, while beneficial for the planet as a whole, can have significant local and human impacts. Environmental justice, labor rights, indigenous sovereignty, and economic equity are intertwined with the rollout of new energy systems. As with any large-scale industrial endeavor, choices must be made about trade-offs and about who bears the costs versus who reaps the benefits. Ensuring that the energy transition is not only rapid but also fair and sustainable is a growing challenge for policymakers and communities worldwide.

One major area of concern is the environmental impact of mining for critical minerals, as discussed earlier. Regions rich in lithium, cobalt, copper, or rare earths often have delicate ecosystems and vulnerable populations. For instance, lithium brine extraction in Chile’s Atacama Desert consumes substantial water in one of the driest places on Earth, potentially affecting indigenous Atacameño communities and the flamingos that depend on the salt flat’s hypersaline lakes. Local activists worry that a rush for lithium could repeat past mistakes where outsiders profited and locals were left with depleted water and polluted lands. Similarly, the cobalt mines of the DRC have been notorious for dangerous conditions and child labor. While big companies now try to enforce responsible sourcing, a significant portion of cobalt comes from small “artisanal” mines that are hard to regulate. The ethical dilemma is evident: the world’s transition to electric cars (which need cobalt for batteries) may be inadvertently built on the backs of some of the world’s poorest workers. Solving this requires both investment in improving conditions in those mining areas and researching ways to reduce or substitute cobalt in batteries (a lot of R&D is indeed focused on cobalt-free batteries).

Rare earth mining has its issues: in China’s rare earth hub in Inner Mongolia, past practices left toxic lakes of chemical waste that affected farming communities. New mines outside China, like one planned in Greenland, face opposition due to potential pollution and disruption of pristine Arctic environments. Even the prospect of deep-sea mining (for metals like nickel and cobalt nodules on the ocean floor) raises profound ethical questions – do we have the right to gouge the seabed before understanding its ecosystems?

Next, consider the social cost of energy policies. When countries impose carbon prices or remove fossil subsidies, fuel and electricity prices can rise for consumers. Wealthier households may adapt (buying a solar roof or an electric car to cut fuel use) but poorer households often cannot afford the upfront costs and end up paying more of their income on energy. This has already led to political backlash: the “Gilets Jaunes” (Yellow Vests) protests in France were partly sparked by a fuel tax that rural and low-income people felt was a burden placed on them without providing alternatives. Similarly, removing electricity subsidies in countries from Indonesia to Nigeria has provoked unrest. Thus, there is an ethical imperative for a “just transition” domestically – ensuring that policies include compensation, retraining, or affordable alternatives so that low-income or vulnerable groups aren’t disproportionately hurt.

A related aspect is the fate of workers and communities tied to the fossil fuel economy. Coal miners, oil rig laborers, power plant workers – millions of people work in legacy energy sectors. Rapid transition could mean job losses and community decline (like coal towns shuttering). Ethically, many argue these workers shouldn’t be left behind; hence “just transition” plans that might include guaranteed pensions, retraining programs into renewable energy or other industries, and regional economic development funds for affected areas. For example, Spain reached an agreement to close most coal mines in return for a €250 million package to support miners and mining regions in developing new industries. In the U.S., there’s talk of directing clean energy manufacturing into former coal communities (like West Virginia attracting a battery factory).

Another ethical issue is land use and indigenous rights. Renewable projects often require large areas: wind farms, solar arrays, new transmission lines. In some cases, these are sited on lands that indigenous peoples or local farmers use. There have been controversies, for example, in Mexico’s Oaxaca state, where huge wind farms were built on the Isthmus of Tehuantepec – a windy corridor – but local Zapotec communities complained of insufficient consultation and share in benefits. Wind turbines can also impact bird populations and scenic landscapes, leading to local opposition (the NIMBY – “not in my backyard” – syndrome). Balancing local environmental impacts with global climate benefits is tricky. Procedurally, it calls for robust community engagement, fair compensation, and perhaps allowing local co-ownership of projects so they benefit economically.

Energy access remains an ethical concern too. As the world decarbonizes, there’s a risk that some poor regions could be left energy-poor because they cannot afford clean technologies. For instance, if international finance cuts off all fossil fuel projects, but a sub-Saharan African country cannot yet deploy enough renewables to meet demand, will it be stuck with energy scarcity? The global North, which built its wealth on fossil fuels, faces an ethical question of how much to support the South in leapfrogging to clean energy. This underpins arguments for climate finance and technology transfer – essentially that rich countries have a responsibility to subsidize clean power for poorer ones, not just for charity but as compensation for historical emissions and to ensure a stable climate for all.

We must also consider waste and lifecycle ethics. Solar panels and wind turbines have finite lifespans (~20-30 years). There’s a looming issue of how to recycle or safely dispose of large volumes of solar panels, batteries, and turbine blades. Doing so improperly could create new environmental hazards (e.g., leaching of heavy metals). Ethical production means planning from cradle to grave: using materials that can be recycled, setting up take-back schemes (some battery makers already plan for recycling to recover metals), and avoiding toxic components where possible. The EU has directives for e-waste that are expanding to renewables; other places are just beginning to grapple with this.

Then there is the question of intergenerational ethics: climate action inherently is about current generations making some sacrifices or investments for the sake of future generations. Choosing a pricier renewable plant over a cheap coal plant might mean current consumers pay a bit more, but their children inherit a safer climate. However, getting democracies and markets to value long-term outcomes is notoriously hard. Ethicists argue for incorporating the “social cost of carbon” – essentially the damage cost of emissions – into all decision-making, to internalize the well-being of future people. Some legal frameworks, like in Germany, have even enshrined climate protection as a duty to future generations.

Finally, global equity is at stake. The average American uses far more electricity (and energy in general) than the average African. As developing nations raise their living standards, their energy use will rise. Ethically, they have a right to develop – but the planet cannot afford them following the old carbon-intensive path. This is the crux of climate justice: how to allow equitable growth without wrecking the climate. It likely involves rich countries cutting their per capita use (through efficiency and lifestyle changes) to create “carbon space” for poorer ones to grow with cleaner tech. It also involves acknowledging that some climate impacts are now unavoidable and helping those most affected (often the poorest who contributed least to the problem) adapt – e.g., building resilient grids against storms or relocating communities from uninhabitable areas. Electricity is central in adaptation too (air conditioning in heatwaves, irrigation in droughts needs power).

In summary, the march towards a new electric era brings with it a need to constantly weigh morality and equity. Each renewable farm, each mine, each policy has human faces and consequences. A truly sustainable energy transition strives to minimize harm – be it to a child laborer in a mine, a family struggling with a high electric bill, or a community near a large project – and to distribute the benefits widely. That means including affected groups in decision-making, enforcing intense labor and environmental standards globally, and remembering that technology alone doesn’t solve social issues. The how of the transition may end up being just as important as the when.

________________________________________

The World in 2030: Scenarios of Cooperation and Conflict

Projecting the trajectory of the “New Cold War” over electricity into the future, we can envision several divergent 2030 scenarios. How the next 5–10 years play out will depend on technological breakthroughs, political will (or lack thereof), and the intensity of geopolitical rivalries. Here, we outline three provocative scenarios – Fragmentation, Forced Collaboration, and Chinese Dominance – each highlighting different possible outcomes by 2030, with the understanding that reality may contain elements of all three.

Scenario 1: Fragmentation – A Splintered Energy World
In this scenario, geopolitical tensions worsen and spill decisively into the energy realm, resulting in a fragmented global system. The U.S.-China rivalry hardens into distinct blocs, with countries pressured to align their energy supply chains and standards with one side or the other. By 2030, we see two (or more) separate spheres of technology: for example, one where Chinese-made solar panels, batteries, and grid software dominate in much of Asia and parts of Africa, and another where Western/Japanese/Korean alternatives are used in North America, Europe, and allied nations. Trade restrictions on energy tech become commonplace – e.g., the U.S. and EU fully ban imports of Chinese electrical equipment (citing security), while China retaliates by limiting exports of critical mineral products to the West.

The global effort to tackle climate change also fragments. Coordination under frameworks like the Paris Agreement falters as trust erodes. Each bloc pursues its own climate-tech agenda – perhaps the West sets up a carbon club trading scheme among themselves, while China leads a coalition of developing nations with its own financing terms. Grid interconnections remain regional at best; the vision of a globally interconnected supergrid fades. Instead, nations emphasize self-reliance: more localized generation (some countries even hoard equipment to prevent dependence). Cyber warfare incidents continue – maybe a major cyberattack in the late 2020s knocks out part of a grid in Europe or Asia for days, deepening fears. Countries respond by disconnecting some systems from international internet or using only domestically-audited technology (splinternet meets splinternet of energy).

In this world, multilateral institutions weaken. The World Bank and IMF struggle to implement broad initiatives as East-West consensus is lacking. Instead, financing happens via rival blocs’ development banks – say, China’s AIIB vs. a beefed-up G7 infrastructure fund. Some countries, unable to afford decarbonization tech from the West and unwilling to accept Chinese influence, get left behind, stuck with old coal plants and suffering climate impacts. Energy might even become a proxy war domain: imagine proxy conflicts or intense competition for influence in places like the Congo (for minerals) or Middle East (for clean hydrogen or remaining oil markets).

Energy security concerns also drive militarization: navies shadow undersea cable repair ships to guard their communication and power links, armies stand ready to secure critical mines or shipping routes for minerals. The new cold war might even spur an arms race in energy tech – like hypersonic missiles designed to take out power plants quickly, or AI systems to counter cyber threats.

This fragmented scenario is one of competition overshadowing cooperation, potentially slowing the global energy transition (due to inefficiencies and trade barriers) and certainly making it more uneven. Climate goals risk being missed as collective action frays.

Scenario 2: Forced Collaboration – Climate Cooperation in a Crisis
In this scenario, the escalating impacts of climate change and the sheer technical complexity of managing an electrified world force countries into greater collaboration, overriding some geopolitical rivalries. By 2030, after a series of devastating climate-related disasters – think megadroughts hitting global food supply, or unprecedented hurricanes taking down major cities’ grids – nations realize that a fractured approach is untenable. The narrative shifts to one of human commonality in the face of a threat. Much like superpowers set aside differences to eradicate smallpox or manage nuclear arms control in the 20th century, they find ways to cooperate on energy/climate out of mutual necessity.

In this world, we see the establishment of global standards and joint initiatives. For example, a global agreement on cyber norms might be reached: perhaps a “Digital Geneva Convention” where countries pledge not to attack civilian grids and to cooperate on catching non-state hackers. The U.S. and China, recognizing that each has too much to lose in a cyber free-for-all (since both have deeply networked grids), quietly form a backchannel team of experts that share threat intelligence on malware targeting power systems. Over time, trust builds in this narrow area and expands.

Technologically, collaboration might yield breakthroughs that are shared. For instance, if fusion energy makes another leap, instead of nations racing separately, they pool resources into an International Fusion Energy Consortium to accelerate commercialization (similar to ITER but with more urgency and funding). Or they might collectively invest in mega-projects that benefit many countries – imagine a Euro-Asian-African solar belt initiative, transmitting solar power from deserts to distant load centers via HVDC lines, co-funded by many. Grid interconnections could cross political divides: maybe by 2030 a subsea “global grid” pilot links continents (there have been proposals to link China to Europe or Australia to Southeast Asia with undersea cables). In this scenario, one could envision power flowing from wherever the sun is shining and wind is blowing at the moment to wherever needs it, thanks to international coordination.

On the climate finance side, collaboration sees rich countries finally meet and exceed their $100 billion per year climate aid pledge, jointly investing in a massive scale-up of renewable energy in the Global South. Perhaps new institutions are born or old ones reformed – e.g., the IMF might have a mandate to provide rapid assistance to countries hit by climate disasters to rebuild resilient, green grids, funded by all major economies.

Geopolitics doesn’t disappear – disputes still exist – but there is a sense of a shared fate that tempers actions. We could see something like the U.S. and China still competing economically, but coming to an understanding that they will both deploy the best tech regardless of origin if it helps their climate resilience. Intellectual property barriers could be eased for crucial technologies via patent pools, so a poor country can build batteries or green hydrogen systems without paying prohibitive royalties.

Public opinion globally might push leaders toward this: perhaps youth climate movements become so influential across countries that every government, democratic or authoritarian, feels pressure to cooperate or be seen as a pariah by its own people for sabotaging humanity’s future.

This scenario yields a more integrated, resilient global power system, probably faster progress on decarbonization, and potentially fewer flashpoints because energy is less of a zero-sum game (if everyone’s benefiting from cheap clean power, the stakes of conflict drop). It’s an optimistic vision where the looming climate crisis essentially enforces a peace treaty on the energy front.

Scenario 3: Chinese Dominance – The Red Grid Era
In this scenario, China decisively outpaces the West in the energy transition, achieving a position of clear dominance by 2030. China’s massive investments in renewables, EVs, and grids pay off spectacularly: it becomes the first country to build a truly modernized, AI-driven, super-efficient grid at scale, and it leverages this head start to export its model globally. By 2030, China is not only the manufacturing hub for clean tech (as it already largely is), but also the leading designer of integrated energy systems, effectively setting the template that others follow.

In this world, many countries become dependent on Chinese technology and financing for their electricity needs. Chinese companies might own significant stakes in power utilities across Asia and Africa, after Western investors pulled back or couldn’t match the low-cost offers. The Belt and Road evolves into a comprehensive energy network under Chinese guidance – for instance, an “Asian supergrid” might form, linking China with Southeast Asia, South Asia, and maybe into the Middle East, using Chinese HVDC lines and controlled by a coordination center in Beijing. Perhaps even parts of Europe, after struggling with high costs, opt for Chinese-built nuclear reactors or large-scale battery storage because they are cheaper and can be built faster than Western alternatives.

Chinese standards become de facto global standards: if Chinese smart meters and EV chargers are ubiquitous, other companies must make their products compatible with them, not the other way around. The yuan might become a currency for energy trade, e.g., green bonds and carbon credits might be issued in yuan given China’s market heft.

Geopolitically, Chinese dominance could mean political leverage. Countries heavily reliant on China for their power infrastructure might hesitate to cross Beijing’s red lines (similar to how dependency on Russian gas made Europe cautious in the past). In extreme cases, one could imagine China using its foothold – say a kill switch in software or a stranglehold on supply of spare parts – to pressure a country (though doing so overtly would damage its business model long-term, so more likely the leverage is tacit).

The U.S. and some allies in this scenario might effectively concede ground in many markets, focusing on securing their own region (maybe the Americas become a U.S.-led energy sphere, while Eurasia tilts toward China). If Western innovation slows, by 2030 China could also lead in patents for next-gen tech (like solid-state batteries or advanced wind turbines), reinforcing a virtuous cycle of dominance.

However, Chinese dominance might not mean global antagonism; it could also mean China takes on a sort of benevolent hegemon role (from its perspective). For example, if China decides to really push climate action, it might enforce green standards on its client states (no new coal plants built without carbon capture, etc.) and provide them the means to comply. The world could benefit from the speed and scale of Chinese-led deployment – global emissions might drop faster because China can build things quickly in many places at once. The risk is more about political freedom and diversity – the world’s energy system might become unipolar. Historically, unipolar systems can be stable, but they can also breed resentment and vulnerability if the hegemon stumbles.

In such a scenario, by 2030 the narrative might be “China won the clean energy race.” Western countries may still be transitioning but perhaps with more difficulty (imagine if internal politics hamstring big projects in the U.S. and EU, while China just marches ahead). One could compare it to how the U.S. led the internet era – setting rules, reaping economic benefits; now China could be in that position for energy.

Hybrid outcomes: Of course, these scenarios are extremes. The likely reality is a mix. We might see partial fragmentation (some tech spheres separate, like a ban on some Chinese gear in U.S. grids, but not a full decoupling), alongside some forced collaboration (maybe on specific issues like a global EV charging standard or joint climate finance for the poorest countries). Chinese dominance might manifest in manufacturing but not as much in project ownership in certain regions that resist it.

We could also imagine a fourth scenario: Technological Breakthroughs, where innovation (maybe fusion or super-cheap storage) changes the game and whoever harnesses it first gains an edge – but by 2030 that likely just reinforces one of the above narratives depending on who leads that innovation.

The year 2030 is not far off – most of the infrastructure and policies that will define it are being implemented now. Yet, the choices made in this decade will chart very different courses. Will we live in a cooperative world that collectively beats climate change and shares in the prosperity of abundant clean energy? Or a divided one where energy becomes a weapon and progress slows? Or a hierarchical one under the umbrella of a new superpower? These questions remain open, but the geopolitics of electricity will certainly be a central storyline as this drama unfolds.

________________________________________

Conclusion

Electricity – once the unassuming utility humming in the background of geopolitics – has moved to the foreground as a defining element of global power dynamics. In this examination styled after Le Monde Diplomatique, we have traversed the world’s regions and themes to understand how electrons and infrastructure reshape alliances, conflicts, and strategies in the 21st century. With its $2.5–4 trillion annual revenues, the global electricity sector is both an economic titan and the linchpin of efforts to stave off climate catastrophe. This dual role makes it the arena of a new kind of Cold War: one fought with patents and procurements instead of missiles, where securing a supply of lithium or a foothold in a foreign grid can be as consequential as military bases or trade pacts.

The grand themes are clear. A technological revolution is underway to decarbonize and digitize power, coinciding with a period of great-power rivalry and realignment. China’s rise as a clean tech superpower is challenging the West’s traditional dominance and offering developing nations an alternative development model – one that comes with vast investments and geopolitical strings. For their part, the United States and its allies are waking up to the strategic imperative of winning the energy race, investing in innovation and outreach to avoid ceding the commanding heights of the future economy. In between, regions like Latin America and Africa assert their agency, leveraging their resources and markets to strike deals on more favorable terms, whether through resource nationalism or shrewd diplomacy.

Energy security has taken on new meaning: no longer just about oil and gas chokepoints, but about cybersecurity shields, diversified supply chains for critical minerals, and resilient grids that can withstand both storms and hacks. The case studies we explored – from Lithium Triangle politics to the Nord Stream 2 debacle to India’s energy ambitions – illustrate that every locale has its own stakes in this global game, and local decisions reverberate internationally. A coup in a mineral-rich country, a policy shift in a manufacturing giant, or an innovation in a startup lab can each tilt the balance.

Financial and ethical considerations add further complexity. The green finance revolution is supplying the capital for change, raising questions about who gets financing and at what cost. Institutions like the World Bank and the IMF are under pressure to reinvent themselves or risk irrelevance in a world that demands climate action. And as we push forward, the moral compass cannot be lost: the energy transition’s success will ultimately be measured not just in gigawatts and gigabytes, but in human well-being, in how inclusive and just it turns out to be for communities from the Atacama Desert to the Appalachian Mountains.

By 2030, the outlines of the new electrified world order will likely be apparent. Will it resemble a cooperative network ensuring energy flows and climate benefits for all, or a patchwork of competing energy empires? The scenarios we sketched offer food for thought, and reality will likely lie in a nuanced middle. What is certain is that electricity has become a strategic commodity. Nations that ensure leadership in clean generation, smart grids, and storage will gain economic advantage and diplomatic clout. Conversely, those that lag or remain entangled in the 20th-century fossil paradigm risk strategic vulnerability – whether that’s exposure to price shocks or dependence on external providers for modern tech.

There is also an opportunity in this “New Cold War” over electricity: unlike the Cold War of old, this contest’s endgame can be win–win if managed wisely. A world of affordable, clean, and reliable electricity is fundamentally a world of greater human development and security. The rivals in this race ultimately share a common enemy – climate instability and systemic risk – and a common hope – technological prosperity and energy abundance. History will judge how well leaders and institutions navigate the tightrope between competition and collaboration. As we conclude this deep-dive analysis, one thing is evident: geopolitics and electrons are now inseparable, and understanding their interplay will be key to grasping the forces that drive our present and shape our future.

Sources:

International Energy Agency (IEA), World Energy Outlook and energy system reports.
Research and Markets, Global Electricity Retailing Industry Guide 2024.
Council on Foreign Relations, background on U.S. national debt.
Reuters news archives on U.S.–China grid tech tensions.
IEA and Wood Mackenzie analyses on China’s share of solar PV manufacturing.
Market data on China’s share of global battery production.
S&P Global report on the nuclear energy resurgence.
U.S. Department of Energy announcement on fusion ignition breakthrough.
Reuters coverage of Chile’s lithium nationalization policy.
U.S. DOE and Wikipedia information on Colonial Pipeline and Ukraine grid cyberattacks.
Reuters and NATO statements on Nord Stream pipeline sabotage.
Reuters report on India’s 2030 renewable energy targets.
S&P Global (S&P) sustainable bond issuance report.
IEA data on African energy access.

Gratitude is our heartbeat.

Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.

Help us stay loud:

One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.

One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).

Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.

Thank you for keeping the flame alive.

https://x.com/Germantoroghio/status/1915515888515899541

Germán & Co 5/5/25 Germán & Co 5/5/25

Energy Security and a Molotov Mix…

A pressure point in energy storage refers to the balance between energy supply and demand. Spain primarily relies on pumped hydro storage, which uses off-peak power to pump water uphill and then releases it to generate electricity during peak demand times. The country has several large pumped hydro facilities, such as the Cortes-La Muela plant, and is expanding its capabilities. However, the total storage capacity is limited and dependent on water availability.

The deployment of battery storage in Spain is still in its early stages, with only a few hundred megawatts of batteries currently operational or planned. This is a small amount compared to the peak demand of 40-45 gigawatts. During midday solar peaks, when electricity generation can greatly exceed consumption, there is often no way to utilize the excess power. Without adequate storage or capacity for export, grid operators may need to resort to curtailment, which involves shutting down solar and wind farms. Curtailment not only wastes carbon-free energy but also undermines the economics for energy producers. However, it is a necessary measure to maintain grid stability when flexibility is lacking.

The southwestern regions, where problems arose in April, frequently experience curtailments due to these issues. This situation indicates that the expansion of the grid has not kept pace with the growth of renewable energy sources. New transmission lines and substations needed to transport solar power from rural areas like Extremadura to major demand centers such as Madrid and Barcelona often face permitting delays and local opposition. Consequently, bottlenecks occur when excessive generation is concentrated on an inadequately equipped grid, creating a risk of instability if not managed properly.

Gratitude is our heartbeat.

Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.

Help us stay loud:

One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.

One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).

Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.

Thank you for keeping the flame alive.

https://x.com/Germantoroghio/status/1918274630856462504

By Germán & Co.
Karlstad, Sweden | May 5, 2025

________________________________________

Introduction: A Blackout in the Green Energy Leader

At midday on April 28, 2025, the Iberian Peninsula — ordinarily a showcase for renewable energy — went dark without warning. In a matter of seconds, Spain’s electricity grid lost an astonishing 15 gigawatts of power, about 60% of national demand. Lights flickered out from Madrid to Lisbon, trains and metros halted, communication networks failed, and daily life lurched to a standstill. Commuters were trapped in subway tunnels, 35,000 rail passengers had to be evacuated from stalled trains, and hospitals fell back on emergency generators to keep critical systems running. Both Spain and Portugal declared states of emergency, deploying thousands of police to maintain order. By the time power was gradually restored nearly a day later, this had become the worst blackout in Europe’s history.

The calamity struck a nation often praised for its aggressive shift to clean energy. Just 12 days earlier, on April 16, Spain had run its grid on 100% renewables for the first time ever, a milestone fueled by abundant spring winds and sun. Yet now, the same green energy mix is under scrutiny. Critics from industry and opposition ranks decried Spain’s “mix suicida” — a “suicidal mix” of power sources — alleging that an overreliance on intermittent renewables and the sidelining of conventional plants had left the grid dangerously unstable. Energy executives revealed they had warned the government a week before that the system was at risk, calling the situation “suicidal” if no action was taken. In their view, Spain’s rush to decarbonize had compromised the basic security of supply.

Spanish officials pushed back firmly against blaming renewable energy. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez insisted that “an excess of renewables” was not to blame for the collapse, calling such claims “lies or ignorance”. The grid operator Red Eléctrica de España (REE) likewise maintained that solar and wind technologies “are already stable” and operate safely, indicating that similar renewable generation levels on past days had caused no issue. Nonetheless, the blackout has triggered searching questions across Europe about the trade-offs between rapid decarbonization and grid reliability. As the EU presses ahead with ambitious climate targets — and even weighs a full ban on Russian gas imports by 2027 — Spain’s ordeal is a cautionary tale. It lays bare the technical stresses of managing a high-renewables grid, the policy oversights in ensuring backup and balance, and the geopolitical urgency of fortifying energy security in an era of tumultuous transition.

This article delves into the root causes and broader context of the April 28 blackout. We examine how a confluence of technical factors — grid instability, surging renewable output, and an ageing power infrastructure — combined with policy choices by Spain and the EU, set the stage for disaster. We trace the historical evolution of Spain’s energy mix, from a carbon-intensive past to today’s green ambitions, and how the phase-out of coal and nuclear has intersected with the boom in wind and solar. We assess the EU’s role in shaping national energy trajectories through initiatives like Fit for 55 and REPowerEU, and how these frameworks attempt to reconcile decarbonization with resilience. Finally, we explore the geopolitical dimension: Europe’s drive to sever its dependence on Russian gas and the new vulnerabilities and diplomatic realignments that come with that pivot. Throughout, we critically evaluate the “suicidal mix” charge — is the current balance between clean energy and stability as perilous as claimed, and what can be done to better manage the green transition without the lights going out?

Midday Meltdown: Anatomy of the April 28 Blackout

At 12:33 p.m. on Monday, April 28, Spain’s grid suffered a rapid-fire sequence of failures that engineers liken to a cardiac arrest in the power system. According to REE’s preliminary report, the crisis unfolded in three pulses. First, a sudden loss of generation occurred in the south of Spain — later estimated as a dip of several gigawatts — causing an “oscillation” in the grid. The system managed to right itself after this initial jolt. However, mere 1.5 seconds later, a second, larger generation loss hit, this time in the southwest. This double blow proved too much: within another few seconds, safety mechanisms tripped the major interconnection between Spain and France, isolating the Iberian grid. What followed was a catastrophic cascading collapse: as frequency and voltage plummeted outside safe bounds, power plants and substations across Spain and Portugal automatically disconnected to protect their equipment. In just a 5-second span, 15 GW of generation vanished from the Spanish grid, and an additional 5 GW dropped in Portugal. The peninsula had effectively “flatlined” to “el cero” – zero power, a condition so extreme that grid operators refer to it in quasi-apocalyptic terms.

The immediate cause of the blackout remains under investigation, but emerging evidence points to an imbalance triggered by renewable power volatility. Spain’s Energy Minister confirmed that 19 seconds before the collapse, a significant loss of generation occurred in the south of the country. This could indicate a large solar farm or other plant tripping offline. REE has identified “two incidents of power generation loss, probably from solar plants, in Spain’s southwest” that initiated the instability. These regions — Extremadura and western Andalusia — are known for thousands of megawatts of new solar capacity and were already considered “the most stressed nodes of the grid”, often requiring technical curtailments (forced shutdowns of solar plants when local generation exceeds carrying capacity). It appears that on April 28, a combination of exceptional solar output and insufficient local absorption led a critical node to fail. When that substation or node went down, it sent shockwaves across the network. With the grid’s delicate supply-demand balance upset, frequency plunged below the standard 50 Hz, leading generators across Iberia and even one in France to disconnect in unison. The result was a textbook case of a cascading outage in a highly interconnected system.

Notably, demand at the time was modest and supply ample. This was not a typical blackout caused by a power shortage, but seemingly the opposite — an oversupply and management failure. In fact, just before the crash, Spain was basking in a renewable bonanza: solar power made up 53–60% of generation, wind about 11–12%, while nuclear and gas together provided only ~15%. Midday spring conditions — bright sun, moderate demand — led to extremely high solar penetration. Ironically, too much supply can disrupt power grids much like too little supply. If generation greatly exceeds consumption, grid frequency surges; conversely, if a chunk of generation suddenly vanishes (as seems to have happened), frequency can crash. Both scenarios risk tripping protective devices. On April 28, grid operators were effectively juggling a surplus — Spain was even exporting power at that hour — when the balance snapped. As Transport Minister Óscar Puente described a precursor incident, “excessive voltage in the network triggered disconnections to protect substations”. That occurred on April 22, when minor power cuts foreshadowed the bigger catastrophe to come.

Initial rumors grasped at exotic explanations. Early media reports (erroneously attributed to Portugal’s REN) spoke of a “rare atmospheric phenomenon” — an “induced atmospheric vibration” — where sudden temperature swings cause oscillations in high-voltage lines. In theory, sharp weather changes can make transmission lines oscillate and de-sync a grid. But as experts noted, the weather that day was calm and “really nice”. Both REE and REN have since ruled out meteorological events, cyberattacks, and human error as primary causes. The consensus is shifting toward an internal grid instability issue — essentially, a technical chain reaction rooted in how generation and network protections were configured.

One key focus is the protective relays and protocols governing Spain’s grid. It has emerged that REE had sought to update its grid protection criteria to account for the “massive entry of renewables” but was awaiting government approval for those changes. The existing protections dated from 1996, an era of predominantly centralized thermal power. REE’s proposal warned that with so many inverters and distributed solar feeding in, certain traditional safeguards might not behave as expected. For example, a substation set to trip at certain thresholds might do so too broadly in a high-renewables scenario, causing an outage to ripple farther. Unfortunately, that revised safety protocol was not yet in place when the events of April 28 hit. Indeed, REE acknowledged that high renewable penetration in a region could overwhelm the old protection system, possibly exactly what occurred in the congested solar hub of Extremadura/Andalusia. Essentially, the grid’s circuit breakers were calibrated for yesterday’s power system, not today’s. The result was that when stresses arose, the system could not “absorb” the perturbations and instead collapsed wholesale.

Spain’s grid operator and crews deserve credit that the “black start” recovery — re-energizing a dead grid — was executed in hours, not days. ENTSO-E, the European network of grid operators, praised the rapid recovery; by late on April 28, REE had gradually reconnected generation and begun restoring power region by region. Still, the socio-economic costs were immense. Analysts estimate the blackout may have shaved €1.6–4.5 billion off Spain’s GDP. Factories like Volkswagen’s Navarra plant lost days of production, small businesses saw inventories spoiled, and three lives were tragically lost to carbon monoxide poisoning when desperate victims ran generators indoors. The political fallout was swift: opposition parties lambasted the government for complacency and demanded an independent inquiry. A National Security Council meeting was convened under the King’s chairmanship to investigate causes, alongside judicial probes into potential sabotage. While no evidence of foul play has emerged, the blackout has exposed vulnerabilities in Spain’s grid operations that must be addressed. As one energy expert succinctly said, “you’ve got to get the engineering right” no matter the energy source. Next, we turn to how Spain built an energy mix that, for all its green laurels, came to teeter on a knife’s edge.

The Renewable Revolution Meets an Ageing Infrastructure

Spain’s energy mix has undergone a dramatic transformation over the past two decades — a journey from fossil-fueled dependency to a renewable energy trailblazer. In the early 2000s, Spain was heavily reliant on coal and imported gas, with a fleet of nuclear reactors from the 1980s providing roughly a fifth of its electricity. That began to change rapidly as Spain embraced wind and solar power. Aggressive government policies in the 2000s, notably generous feed-in tariffs for renewables, spurred a boom. By 2010, Spain had become the world’s 4th-largest wind power producer, and its sunny plains were dotted with solar farms feeding into the grid. This early push was not without pain — a solar PV investment bubble in 2007-2008 ended with a bust when subsidies were abruptly cut, leaving investors reeling. Nonetheless, the groundwork was laid for a cleaner energy system.

By 2023, wind and solar accounted for over one-third of Spain’s electricity: wind supplied about 22% and solar 15% of total generation. Together with hydro and other renewables, 56% of Spain’s power in 2024 came from renewable sources. This is a remarkable leap from just a decade prior; in 2010, renewables (mostly wind and hydro) were nearer to 25% of the mix. Spain’s National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP) set ever higher targets, aiming for 74% renewable electricity by 2030, a goal since revised upward to 81% by 2030 to align with EU ambitions. The ultimate vision is 100% carbon-free power by 2050. In parallel, Spain has virtually phased out coal: it shut its last domestic coal mines in 2019 and has closed most coal-fired plants or scheduled them for closure well before 2030. This was facilitated by EU climate policy and the rising cost of CO₂ allowances, which made coal uneconomic. Oil-fired power is long gone except in islands, and natural gas was intended as the bridge — Spain built a fleet of combined-cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) in the 2000s to provide flexible power and replaced a lot of oil use with gas in heating and industry.

The nuclear sector, meanwhile, is on borrowed time. Spain’s seven nuclear reactors, first connected between 1968 and 1988, still provide around 20% of electricity in a typical year. But they are aging, and the government’s roadmap calls for shutting all nuclear plants by 2035. The phase-out is slated to begin in 2027 with the two reactors at Almaraz — the very site whose downtime became a flashpoint during the recent crisis. (In a twist of timing, both Almaraz units were offline on April 28, having been temporarily shut “due to abundant wind energy making operations uneconomic” just days prior. One unit was still down during the blackout, meaning nuclear was not at full strength that day.) The planned nuclear exit reflects political priorities (the current left-wing coalition is anti-nuclear) and economic realities (reactors face high upgrade costs and competition from cheap renewables). But it also removes a major source of steady, dispatchable power from the system. Former REE chairman Jordi Sevilla warned in January that “shutting down the nuclear plants may put electricity supply at risk”. Industry voices echoed that losing nuclear’s inertia and capacity “reduces the grid's balancing capabilities,” increasing the risk of incidents.

This evolving mix — soaring renewables, shrinking baseload — has left Spain’s power infrastructure straining to adapt. The high-voltage grid and control systems were originally designed for centralized generation feeding passive demand centers. Now, Spain has to integrate thousands of distributed solar installations (many under 1 MW) and wind farms spread across its geography. REE has candidly admitted that it “lacked information from smaller plants to be able to operate in real time”. In other words, the system operator doesn’t always have a clear picture of what myriad rooftop panels or small solar farms are doing moment-to-moment. This complicates balancing efforts. In its latest annual report (Feb 2025), REE’s parent company Redeia flagged the insufficient visibility and controllability of these new generators as a serious operational challenge. It warned of an “increased risk of disconnections due to the high penetration of renewables without the technical capacities necessary for an adequate response to disturbances”. Tragically, that statement proved prophetic two months later.

Another pressure point is energy storage — or the lack thereof. Spain relies predominantly on pumped hydro storage (using off-peak power to pump water uphill, then releasing it to generate electricity at peak times) for bulk energy storage. It has several large pumped hydro facilities (like the Cortes-La Muela plant) and is expanding others. But the total storage is limited and subject to water availability. Battery storage deployment is only just beginning in earnest; a few hundred megawatts of batteries are operational or planned, tiny compared to peaks of 40-45 GW demand. During the midday solar peaks, when generation can far exceed consumption, excess power often has nowhere to go. Without sufficient storage or export capacity, the grid operator resorts to curtailment — ordering solar/wind farms to shut off. Curtailment wastes carbon-free energy and can undermine the economics for producers, but it is a necessary safeguard to keep the grid stable when flexibility runs out. The south-west regions where April’s problems originated were known to experience frequent curtailments for exactly this reason. It’s a sign that grid expansion hasn’t kept pace with renewable expansion. New transmission lines and substations to carry solar from rural Extremadura to distant demand centers (Madrid, Barcelona, etc.) are often bogged down by permitting delays and local opposition. Thus, bottlenecks form, where too much generation is concentrated on too weak a grid — a situation ripe for instability if not carefully managed.

Compounding matters, many of Spain’s gas plants have been underutilized, raising concerns about their future availability. The surge in renewables and a lull in demand growth meant that for much of the 2010s, Spain’s gas-fired stations ran at low capacity factors (only a fraction of their potential output). Several were mothballed. While this is good for emissions, it means some flexible plants may not be financially viable to remain on standby. Spain has implemented “capacity payments” in the past — paying plant owners to keep capacity available even if not often used — but these mechanisms have been contentious under EU market rules. Nonetheless, having gas turbines ready to ramp up or down is critical to buffer wind/solar swings. On April 28, however, virtually all Spain’s gas and coal units were offline or at minimum load, since there was ample renewable energy and low marginal prices. When the grid frequency nosedived, there was scant “spinning reserve” from thermal plants that could instantly respond. Carlos Cagigal, an energy consultant, noted that “Spain’s nuclear plants weren’t operating at the time, meaning all of its electricity was coming from renewables feeding saturated substations. When one of those substations failed and there wasn’t adequate backup, safety protocols kicked in”. In short, the conventional plants that might have helped cushion the blow were either switched off for economic reasons or already tripped by the disturbance.

To be clear, Spain has not neglected grid improvements entirely. It has been investing in solutions like synchronous condensers (large spinning machines that do not generate power but provide stabilizing inertia and voltage support). In 2022, REE installed new synchronous condensers in the Balearic Islands and in the mainland grid specifically to boost inertia in high-renewable scenarios. Spain also has fast-reacting hydro plants that can ramp up output quickly. And the milestone of 100% renewable operation on April 16 was achieved without incident, showing that the grid can handle such mixes under the right conditions. Yet the blackout indicates that specific critical nodes and contingency plans were overstretched. It has forced a reckoning: Is the infrastructure robust enough for the renewable era? The government had forecast €52 billion of investment by 2030 to upgrade the grid (for new demand like data centers and electric vehicles and integrating renewables). The events of April 28 suggest this upgrade agenda needs to accelerate. As we’ve seen, Spain’s renewable revolution is impressive and irreversible — but it now faces the complex reality that wires, transformers, software, and regulations must catch up to the new generation profile. Otherwise, avoidable reliability crises could undermine the achievements in clean energy.

Brussels’ Hand: EU Climate Policy and Grid Resilience

Spain’s energy trajectory doesn’t exist in a vacuum — it is deeply entwined with European Union policies and targets. Over the last few years, the EU has unleashed a flurry of climate initiatives that push member states toward greener, more integrated energy systems. Foremost among these is the “Fit for 55” package, unveiled in 2021, which aims to cut EU-wide greenhouse gas emissions 55% by 2030 (relative to 1990). To hit that mark, Brussels significantly raised the bar for renewables: the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive now targets about 42.5% of total final energy from renewables by 2030 (up from 32% previously), and roughly two-thirds of EU electricity is expected to be renewable by 2030. For a country like Spain, rich in sun and wind, this was an invitation to go even faster. Spain duly increased its national targets – hence the current 81% renewable electricity goal for 2030, one of the most ambitious in Europe. EU climate policy also led Spain to adopt a national Climate Change and Energy Transition Law (2021), which enshrines a 100% renewable electricity aim by mid-century and bans new oil, gas, and coal permits. The direction from Brussels has been clear: decarbonize aggressively.

Alongside decarbonization, the EU pushes for market integration and cross-border interconnections. The logic is that a unified European power grid can better accommodate renewables by sharing energy across regions – sunny Spain can export solar at noon, windy North Sea power can flow to doldrum areas, etc. For years, the EU has prodded Spain (and Portugal) to increase their interconnection with the rest of Europe. A decade ago, the European Council set a goal that each member state should have interconnection capacity equivalent to at least 10% of its installed generation (later raising it to 15% by 2030). Spain, however, remains an “energy island” of sorts; its links over the Pyrenees to France are limited to about 2.8 GW, roughly <3% of its generation capacity. This is far below the 10% goal. Spain’s energy minister Sara Aagesen emphasized after the blackout that “it is necessary to reinforce interconnections via France,” noting the imbalance between Europe’s 10% target and the current 3% reality. Poor interconnection means that when Spain has excess renewable power, it cannot easily export enough of it to neighbors (and vice versa for shortages). During the April 28 incident, the limited France link was actually a double-edged sword — it transmitted disturbances that caused a French plant to trip, then the link shut itself off to protect the broader European grid. Greater interconnection in the long run will enhance stability (larger grid “pool” to absorb shocks), but it requires France’s cooperation, which historically has been lukewarm due to concerns about its own grid and market impacts.

The EU also provides funding for cross-border infrastructure and smart grids through instruments like the Connecting Europe Facility and the Recovery and Resilience Facility (the latter channeled billions into member states’ green projects post-COVID). Spain has been a beneficiary, using EU funds to bolster its grid and roll out innovations (like digital grid management systems and EV charging networks). Brussels has supported projects to link Spain’s grid more tightly with Portugal (which is now well integrated with Spain) and to study new links to France. A major project now underway is a submarine power cable through the Bay of Biscay to connect Spain and France by 2027, doubling interconnection capacity. There is also the planned “Celtic Interconnector” linking Spain to Ireland via France. These efforts underscore that EU energy policy prizes both decarbonization and interconnection as twin pillars of security.

However, one area where EU policy has arguably lagged is in explicitly mandating reliability measures alongside renewables deployment. While bodies like ENTSO-E conduct Europe-wide grid adequacy assessments and issue warnings, the implementation is left to national authorities. In April, just weeks before the blackout, ENTSO-E cautioned that the scheduled closure of Spain’s Almaraz nuclear plant units starting 2027 “will increase the risks of blackouts” on the Iberian grid. REE responded publicly that it foresaw “no risk of a blackout” and could guarantee stable supply — a statement now painfully ironic. The EU does enforce some technical rules (like requirements for grid operators to have reserve margins and emergency plans), and through the Electricity Regulation it has frameworks for capacity mechanisms if needed to ensure supply. Spain in fact secured EU approval in 2019 for a capacity market to keep some gas plants available for backup. But even capacity markets only help if they are used robustly and if the units can physically respond fast enough to events like April 28’s. The EU’s broader approach has been to trust that market signals plus prudent national planning will maintain reliability. After this event, that approach may be revisited, with calls for stronger regional coordination on grid stability. Notably, EU Energy Commissioner Kadri Simson and her successor (Dan Jørgensen, who took office in 2024) have stressed that grid resilience must go “hand in hand” with the green transition and have launched an EU-level investigation into the blackout’s causes. This suggests Brussels recognizes a need to fine-tune policies so that “Fit for 55” does not unintentionally result in “unfit grids”.

Another crucial EU initiative is REPowerEU, devised in 2022 in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. REPowerEU’s immediate goal was to wean Europe off Russian fossil fuels — especially piped natural gas — as quickly as possible, and to strengthen the bloc’s energy autonomy. For electricity, this translated into an accelerated rollout of renewables and hydrogen. The European Commission urged member states to “double solar photovoltaic capacity by 2025” and set massive targets for 2030 (600 GW of solar and 510 GW of wind EU-wide). It also promoted heat pumps and electrification to cut gas demand. Spain enthusiastically embraced these goals, seeing an opportunity to leverage its sun and wind resources. Indeed, Spain updated its NECP in 2023 to target 76 GW of solar PV by 2030 (nearly doubling from ~39 GW prior target). All this is supported by EU recovery funds — Spain’s recovery plan allocated billions for renewable energy, grid upgrades, and hydrogen projects. Crucially, REPowerEU also calls for streamlining permits for renewables, as bureaucratic delays were a bottleneck. Spain moved to simplify permitting, which means the pace of solar and wind farm commissioning is set to increase further in coming years.

The European dimension also encompasses shared challenges of grid management that transcend borders. For instance, in January 2021 Europe narrowly averted a continent-wide blackout when a disturbance in Croatia split the EU grid into east and west; only quick action and support from neighbors prevented collapse. That incident, like the Spain blackout, underscored how interconnected Europe’s fates are. Following it, ENTSO-E and EU regulators pushed for better real-time data exchange and cooperation among TSOs (Transmission System Operators). The Iberian blackout will likely accelerate such efforts. We might see, for example, EU guidelines on mandatory inertia or fast-frequency response requirements for systems as renewable penetration grows beyond certain thresholds. Already, the EU’s Network Codes (technical rules) have standards for generators to provide frequency control and fault ride-through. But the technology is evolving: grid-forming inverters, advanced battery systems, and even flywheel storage can emulate many stability services of thermal plants. The EU could incentivize deployment of these across member states, ensuring that high-renewables countries like Spain adopt cutting-edge solutions to keep frequency stable. In essence, Europe must marry its climate ambitions with a continent-spanning upgrade of grid robustness. The blackout has made it clear that achieving a 55% emissions cut must go hand in hand with a “system security” agenda, or else public confidence in the energy transition could falter.

Spain, for its part, often points out that European solidarity is a two-way street. During the 2021-2022 energy price crisis, Spain and Portugal implemented the so-called “Iberian exception” — a temporary EU-approved gas price cap to keep electricity prices down, acknowledging their weak interconnection meant Spanish consumers couldn’t benefit from French nuclear or German coal in a crunch. Conversely, Spain has offered to help Europe by leveraging its infrastructure: it has Europe’s largest LNG import capacity and had proposed new gas pipelines over the Pyrenees (MidCat) to supply central Europe with non-Russian gas. While France blocked MidCat, an alternative H2Med pipeline for green hydrogen exports from Spain to France (and onward) is now being advanced with EU blessing. This speaks to a future where Spain becomes not just a consumer of EU energy policy but a supplier of energy to Europe — potentially exporting its excess solar power via new wires or shipping green hydrogen made from its renewables. The EU’s vision of collective energy security means Spain’s grid issues matter beyond its borders. A stable, well-integrated Spanish grid could be a powerhouse that helps lights stay on in Paris or Berlin one day, just as today France’s nuclear or Germany’s wind can help Spain when needed. Thus, the EU’s climate and energy integration policies are deeply interlinked in Spain’s case: success in one (clean energy rollout) must be matched by success in the other (cross-border balancing and support).

In summary, EU policies like Fit for 55 and REPowerEU have propelled Spain to its green vanguard position, providing targets, funding, and market frameworks. But policy makers in Brussels did not fully anticipate the operational stresses at the grid edge. The Spanish blackout is likely to influence EU strategy going forward: expect increased emphasis on grid investment, storage, and resilience measures across all member states. As one Financial Times editorial put it, these blackouts are a “wake-up call” that **governments must invest in electricity resilience “alongside the green transition”. The next section will examine the geopolitical overlay — how the broader drive to end reliance on Russian gas and other external fuels makes the task of balancing decarbonization with reliability even more urgent.

Geopolitical Crosswinds: Russian Gas, Algeria, and Europe’s Energy Security

The year 2022 was a turning point for Europe’s energy geopolitics. Russia’s war on Ukraine led to what European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called a “tectonic shift” in EU energy strategy. Virtually overnight, the EU resolved to terminate decades of reliance on Russian hydrocarbons – a dependence that had supplied 40% of EU gas, 25% of its oil, and nearly half its coal. The EU banned Russian coal imports in mid-2022 and moved to phase out Russian oil (with an embargo on seaborne oil and G7 price cap). Gas was trickier: while no immediate ban was imposed (owing to the risk of winter shortages in countries like Germany and Italy), the EU’s REPowerEU plan set the course to “phase out Russian gas” completely by 2027. Unprecedented efforts went into cutting Russian gas: pipeline flows from Russia plummeted by almost 80% between 2021 and 2023 as Gazprom throttled deliveries and Europe refused to open new contracts. By 2025, Russian gas constitutes only a few percent of EU imports, down from the lion’s share pre-war. In its place, Europe turned to a mix of emergency measures: record imports of LNG from suppliers like the United States, Qatar, and Nigeria; increased pipeline gas from Norway, North Africa, and Azerbaijan; and – critically – demand reduction and fuel switching, which saw coal plants temporarily returned to service and industry curtail usage.

Spain found itself in a somewhat paradoxical position in this upheaval. On one hand, Spain was one of the least dependent EU countries on Russian gas, typically sourcing less than 10% of its gas from Russia (its primary suppliers being Algeria and LNG from various origins). On the other hand, Spain holds some of Europe’s keys to energy diversification. It has six large LNG terminals (about one-third of the EU’s LNG import capacity) and was willing to act as a gas entry point to the continent. The Spanish government advocated for the revival of the MidCat gas pipeline over the Pyrenees to carry gas (and later hydrogen) northwards, as a matter of EU solidarity. Though France blocked MidCat, under EU pressure and German lobbying, a compromise “H2Med” pipeline dedicated to hydrogen was agreed, indicating a longer-term vision of Iberia as a green hydrogen hub feeding Europe.

In the short term, Europe’s Russian gas exit put stress on all countries to ensure energy security. Gas prices spiked to record highs in 2022, leading to exorbitant electricity prices in Spain’s market as well (until the “Iberian exception” cap kicked in). High gas prices incentivized even more renewable energy deployment, reinforcing Spain’s push to get off fossil gas for power generation. However, it also meant gas-fired plants remained critical as backup to avoid blackouts during the transition. Europe asked countries to save energy; Spain mandated cooling and heating limits in public buildings to conserve gas, for example. By winter 2022/23, an unusually warm season and full gas storage spared Europe from crisis. But had that winter been harsh, Spain too might have needed to ship gas to France or elsewhere under EU solidarity mechanisms (the EU has rules for one country to assist another with gas in emergencies). It highlighted that Spain’s security is linked to Europe’s and vice versa.

Another geopolitical wrinkle is Spain’s relationship with Algeria, its historical gas supplier. Spain receives Algerian gas via the Medgaz undersea pipeline to Almería and via LNG shipments. Until late 2021, a second pipeline (Maghreb-Europe) ran through Morocco, but that was closed after Algeria cut ties with Morocco over the Western Sahara dispute. In 2022, Spain angered Algeria by shifting its Western Sahara policy closer to Morocco’s position. Algeria responded by threatening to cut gas exports and raised prices for Spain. Though it didn’t stop pipeline flows (doing so would have hurt Algeria’s revenue and reputation with the EU), it did illustrate how geopolitical disputes can endanger energy supply even among “friendly” partners. Spain had to reassure that any gas it re-exported to Morocco via reverse flow was not Algerian origin. The episode underlined the importance of Spain’s LNG infrastructure – which gives it flexibility to source gas globally if pipeline supplies falter. And it drove home that diversification of supply (a core REPowerEU principle) is not just about Russia, but about not being too beholden to any single supplier. Spain in effect diversified by importing more LNG from the U.S. (which by 2023 became Spain’s top gas source, as it did for the EU broadly).

From a diplomacy standpoint, the EU’s pivot away from Russia has drawn Spain and the rest of Europe into new energy alliances. The United States emerged as a key partner, dramatically boosting LNG exports to Europe – to the point that over half of U.S. LNG in 2022 went to the EU. This created some frictions (accusations of Americans profiting from high prices) but overall solidified transatlantic ties. The EU (with Spain’s support) also struck cooperation deals with countries like Qatar, Egypt, and Israel to secure LNG and future hydrogen. In mid-2023, for instance, Spain hosted a summit with African and European leaders on green hydrogen cooperation, highlighting its aspiration to be a bridge between North Africa’s vast solar potential and Europe’s clean energy needs. Here, geopolitics and the green transition intersect: Europe’s need for non-Russian energy is accelerating investments in renewable projects in North Africa (like Morocco’s solar farms or potential Algerian green hydrogen) which could supply Europe – possibly via Spain as the landing point.

All these changes put a premium on infrastructure readiness. If Spain is to import LNG at full throttle and potentially export surplus power or hydrogen, it needs pipelines, wires, and conversion facilities. Some of this is underway: apart from H2Med, Spain is expanding interconnectors with Portugal and building new internal power lines to handle renewables. But time is short and the scale is large. In the interim, Europe’s gas crisis taught a lesson that also applies to electricity: strategic reserves and buffers are crucial. The EU mandated that each country fill gas storage to 80-90% before winter; Spain complied by filling its modest storage (it has less storage than central Europe due to more LNG flexibility). Similarly, one could argue for capacity reserves in electricity – ensuring a buffer of dispatchable power or demand-response that can be called upon in emergencies. Spain’s blackout is prompting such discussions. After all, had the April 28 collapse been prolonged for days, it would have required massive mutual aid — perhaps emergency power imports from neighbors or even deploying diesel gensets at scale — akin to how EU nations help each other in gas crises. That hypothetical underscores that electricity security is national but also increasingly European.

Another geopolitical factor is how energy dependencies shape diplomacy. Spain’s commitment to closing nuclear plants by 2035, for example, aligns with its domestic politics, but also spares it from relying on imported uranium or on extending plants that might need Russian nuclear fuel services (as some Eastern European reactors did until recently). However, it does make Spain potentially more reliant on imported technology like batteries from Asia or electrolyzers for hydrogen. The EU is cognizant of this and through its Green Deal Industrial Plan is pushing for domestic production of clean tech (batteries, solar panels, etc.) to avoid simply trading one dependency (Russian gas) for another (Chinese solar panels or rare earth materials). Spain, with its automotive industry, is investing in battery gigafactories and EV production as part of EU funding programs. So the concept of energy security now extends to supply chains for the energy transition. Spain’s “suicidal mix” critics sometimes point to the irony that rushing into renewables could make Europe dependent on Chinese manufacturing. The counterargument is that renewables and electrification free Europe from fuel geo-politics, and manufacturing can be localized over time.

In summary, the geopolitical storm around Russian gas has, somewhat counterintuitively, reinforced Europe’s green momentum (to eliminate fossil fuel leverage) while also exposing infrastructure gaps. Spain’s blackout occurred against this backdrop of Europe redefining energy security. Where once “energy security” in Europe meant diversifying oil and gas supply routes, today it equally means ensuring the stability of a renewables-heavy grid. Both dimensions intersect in Spain. The EU’s move to ban Russian gas has given Spain a bigger role in continental energy strategy, but it also leaves no safety net of fossil slack — everyone is pushing the envelope to replace gas with wind, solar, and efficiency. That raises the stakes for getting the transition right. The Iberian blackout sent shockwaves through EU capitals as a warning: even as we cut ties with the Kremlin’s gas, we must keep our house in order. In the next section, we’ll confront head-on the “suicidal mix” critique and ask whether Spain (and by extension Europe) has struck the right balance between decarbonization and stability, or whether a course correction is needed to avoid future calamities.

“A Suicidal Mix?”: Balancing Decarbonization with Stability

In the aftermath of the blackout, the phrase “mezcla suicida” – “suicidal mix” – has been on the lips of many Spanish energy veterans. It captures the fear that Spain’s current blend of energy sources is dangerously unbalanced, risking system collapse. What exactly is this critique? In essence, industry experts and opposition voices argue that Spain has pushed renewable integration faster than it has built in stabilizing measures. By aggressively retiring coal and planning to shutter nuclear, while not yet having sufficient storage, backup, or grid reinforcements, Spain (they say) has created a precarious situation: a grid highly dependent on weather-dependent generation that can neither be fully controlled nor easily backed up at all times. “Blackouts can happen anywhere, but this type of thing tends not to happen when you have more baseload like nuclear on the grid,” observed Seth Grae, a U.S. nuclear industry executive, adding pointedly, “the more your sources are intermittent, the greater the risk”. Those sympathetic to this view note that at the moment of crisis, zero fossil or nuclear plants were truly online to help – essentially 100% renewable generation was feeding Spain when it went dark. To critics, this looks like proof that the mix itself was at fault.

Spain’s major electric companies had already sounded alarms. On April 22, in a meeting with Prime Minister Sánchez, private utility executives warned that allowing half of Spain’s nuclear fleet to be offline while surging renewables constituted a “suicidal” risk to grid security. They urged action and reportedly got a slow response. The conservative opposition (PP) has seized on the blackout to call for reconsidering the nuclear shutdown plan. Even the far-right VOX party — which has long opposed Spain’s climate policies — trumpeted the event as evidence of “the importance of a balanced energy mix” rather than an all-renewable approach. These critics advocate keeping dispatchable plants (nuclear, gas) alive longer, investing in grid robustness, and pacing the renewable rollout to match infrastructure development. In their view, Spain’s rush has been politically driven (to meet EU climate goals and please a pro-renewables electorate) but not matched with the less-glamorous work of grid prep.

How fair is this “suicidal mix” accusation? There is some truth and some exaggeration. On one hand, the blackout undeniably exposed that certain safeguards and backup systems were insufficient. If, hypothetically, a few more big thermal plants had been online that day providing inertia and reserves, the outcome might have been different. Spain’s grid “requires investments to adapt to the technical reality of the new generation mix,” as REE’s own head of operations admitted. That is essentially agreeing that the mix as currently managed isn’t fully secure. Moreover, diversity of supply is a hallmark of resilience: relying on any single type of resource (even if it’s “the sun”) can be risky when conditions change. The evening of April 28 saw wind and solar drop to near-zero as the sun set and winds calmed, leaving Spain to rely on imports and scrambling gas units. Such swings will intensify with higher renewable shares unless mitigated.

On the other hand, pinning the blackout simply on “too many renewables” is oversimplified, if not misleading. Danish and German grids have operated at 100% wind or solar for brief periods without crashing (though with robust interconnectors and controls). Portugal, which was also almost fully renewable on April 28, initially stayed online a bit longer than Spain before being dragged down — suggesting the trigger was a specific technical event, not an inherent inability of renewables to keep lights on. As EU Energy Commissioner Dan Jørgensen remarked, “the causes of the blackout cannot be reduced to a specific source of energy, for instance renewables”. The fact that the grid had run in a similar state on other days “to perfection” (as Minister Aagesen noted) indicates renewables per se were not the deterministic cause; it was the combination of a high-renewable moment and a lack of certain stabilizers or protocols. In other words, correlation is not causation: yes, the blackout occurred during peak solar output, but that doesn’t mean solar output inherently causes blackouts. It means the system didn’t handle a contingency at that time.

Energy analysts point out that any type of plant can trip — coal, gas, nuclear, or renewable. What matters is the system’s design to withstand those trips. “Trips happen all the time across all asset types. Networks should be designed to withstand multiple loss of generators,” wrote engineer Roger Hollies in response to the blame game. The failure here was that losing 15 GW (equivalent to 10 large power stations or 75 solar farms) cascaded uncontrollably. That magnitude of loss suggests wider systemic issues beyond just “the sun went behind a cloud.” It might implicate protection settings, reserve policies, or communication delays. In fact, some experts suspect low-frequency oscillations in the Europe-wide system played a role, as unusual frequency “ringing” was detected from Latvia to Spain around that time. Such oscillations could be a freak occurrence unrelated to Spain’s mix, or possibly exacerbated by it — a complex technical puzzle under study.

What can be done to ensure Spain’s mix is secure, not suicidal? Broadly, two approaches: enhance the grid & support infrastructure, and adjust the generation mix or operations. The first is uncontroversial: massive grid upgrades are already planned, and now must be expedited. This means stronger transmission links especially in renewable-rich regions, updated protection systems (as REE wanted), and cutting-edge control software using AI to predict and manage fluctuations. Also, dramatically scaling energy storage and demand response. Spain has a target to install about 20 GW of storage by 2030 (pumped hydro and batteries combined) in its NECP. Realizing that target will go a long way to buffer the highs and lows of renewables. Grid-forming battery inverters can also provide synthetic inertia, reacting in milliseconds to prop up frequency. Already, pilot projects in the Canaries have shown that solar-plus-battery systems can keep an island grid stable in the absence of thermal plants. On the mainland, more pumped hydro projects (like the 1.5 GW Nant de Drance plant Swiss built, or Spain’s own 2000 MW Chira-Soria project in Gran Canaria) will help store midday surplus for evening use. Demand response is another underused tool: Spain could incentivize large consumers or aggregated EV chargers to quickly cut usage when frequency dips, acting as “virtual power plants” to stabilize the grid.

On the generation side, one option is to maintain a core of firm capacity until new tech fills the gap. This could mean slowing the coal and nuclear phase-outs or ensuring sufficient gas plants remain operational. Spain already closed most coal, and politically it’s unlikely to reopen that chapter (coal’s contribution is now minuscule, and its emissions make it untenable). But nuclear presents a dilemma: the plants are aging and politically unpopular in the current government, yet they provide reliable low-carbon power and inertia. The opposition pledges to extend nuclear if they win power; industry would likely support that if the economics (or subsidies) are there. However, given Spain’s strong renewable trajectory, even extended reactors would eventually shut by the 2040s. So nuclear is at best a temporary crutch. Natural gas plants might be more flexible in the near term. Spain must ensure that enough gas-fired capacity stays online, even if running rarely. This might require more capacity payments to these plants to avoid early retirements. During extreme events (like prolonged windless periods or a grid restart after blackout), having modern CCGTs available is a lifesaver. But gas has its own insecurity now (volatile global prices, and decarbonization demands). Spain plans to convert some CCGTs to burn green hydrogen or ammonia in the future, which could keep them relevant in a net-zero scenario.

One should note that reversing the renewable build-out is neither feasible nor desirable. The climate crisis and EU mandates mean Spain cannot slow-walk on clean energy – nor does it want to, given the economic benefits (renewables have brought investment and made Spain a net power exporter at times). The key is managing them better. Countries like Ireland and Great Britain, which have very high wind penetration, have instituted special grid services: they procure “synchronous compensators,” fast-responding reserves, and enforce grid code requirements that new wind farms have fault ride-through and voltage control capabilities. Spain likely will adopt similar or stricter requirements for new solar/wind plants to contribute to stability (for example, mandating that inverter-based resources provide a minimum reactive power or inertia response). ENTSO-E is exploring requiring wind/solar to have “grid-forming” capabilities by default. All this essentially means future renewables won’t be just passive power sources, but active grid-supporting resources.

Another aspect is regional balance and decentralization. Instead of huge single-source plants, diversifying renewable geography can help. Spain has done well integrating wind (which is stronger in the north and at night) and solar (strong in the south and midday) – their profiles complement each other to some extent. Seasonal complementarity too: winter brings more wind, summer more sun. The blackout hit at a moment of solar dominance and low wind. In a different season, wind might have provided more inherent inertia via big turbine rotors and distributed output. Encouraging a mix of renewables (including emerging ones like renewable thermal, wave, or biomass for dispatchable renewable power) could improve resilience. Hydroelectric power remains a cornerstone for Spain; although droughts limit it some years, hydro plants can ramp very quickly to smooth fluctuations. Ensuring hydro capacity is used optimally (and perhaps not over-committed for export during critical periods) is part of the balancing act.

To the term “suicidal mix” – it’s a dramatic label that arguably serves political narratives more than technical insight. Yes, the balance today is riskier than before, but it’s not inevitably deadly. Spain’s mix can be made robust with targeted measures. Germany went through a similar debate (“energy crisis” headlines in 2022 when wind lulled and gas was scarce), yet kept moving forward on renewables after adding LNG terminals and reserve coal units as a safety net. California faced rolling blackouts in 2020 partly due to mis-timed retirements and lack of batteries, but has since beefed up capacity and shifted peak demand via pricing — effectively addressing the issue without abandoning its clean energy goals. Spain will likely follow suit: treat the blackout as a stark warning and implement a suite of fixes. Already, the government set up a crisis commission with not just officials but input from the utilities and grid experts. The major utilities (through their association Aelec) have asked to be part of the investigation committee, signaling a cooperative approach to solutions rather than finger-pointing.

One probable outcome is that Spain may moderate the pace of decommissioning dispatchable plants until new measures are in place. For example, the timeline of nuclear closures might be re-evaluated in light of grid adequacy studies. Or Spain might invest in gas-peaker plants or long-duration flow batteries specifically for contingency reserves. The cost of avoiding blackouts is far smaller than that of blackouts themselves (billions in one day, as RBC and others tallied). This cost argument may convince even climate hawks that spending on some fossil backup or grid redundancy is a worthwhile insurance for the transition period. The Spanish government also knows that public opinion can swing if blackouts become associated with green policies; maintaining reliability is crucial for sustaining support for the energy transition.

In conclusion, while Spain’s current energy mix and grid setup proved vulnerable – validating some of the concerns behind the “suicidal mix” moniker – it is not an indictment of renewables or decarbonization per se. It is a challenge to do the transition smarter. The blackout is forcing a recalibration: renewables must be complemented by robust infrastructure, policy, and yes, some old-fashioned power plants, until new tech can fully take their place. The balance between decarbonization and stability can be achieved with foresight and investment. Europe and Spain have navigated energy transitions before (albeit not this steep) – from oil to nuclear, from dirtier grids to cleaner ones. There were dire warnings of lights going out each time, and occasionally they did, but engineering and policy solutions evolved. As an IEA review noted, “such a transformed energy landscape will come with new challenges in the form of energy security, as fluctuating renewable generation will require new forms of back-up and flexibility”. Those new forms are now urgently needed. Fortunately, the blackout has jolted authorities into recognizing the time to build the safety net. In the concluding section, we consider how Spain and the EU can move forward, learning from this incident to safeguard the future of their green energy aspirations.

Conclusion: Resilience as the New Imperative

The April 28 blackout in Spain was a dramatic rendezvous between ambition and reality. It starkly demonstrated that energy security and decarbonization are two sides of the same coin: one cannot be sacrificed for the other. Spain’s heroic build-out of renewable power propelled it to the forefront of climate leadership, but it also exposed fragilities in the foundations of the power system. In the European Union context, this event resonates far beyond Spain. It raises a flag for any nation racing toward carbon neutrality: ensure the grid can keep up with the times. The old paradigm of security — stockpiling fuel and diversifying suppliers — must be expanded to a new paradigm where voltage stability, frequency control, and cyber-physical robustness are just as critical as barrels and pipelines once were.

Moving forward, Spain and the EU are responding on multiple fronts. Investigations will pin down the technical failure points, likely leading to an overhaul of certain operational protocols (for example, re-tuning protection relays and requiring primary frequency response from inverter-based resources). We can expect expedited investments in the “plumbing” of the system: transformers, transmission lines, synchronous condensers, islanding schemes, and more. The Spanish government has already signaled it will advance its grid upgrade timeline and coordinate closely with neighboring grids. At the EU level, Energy Commissioner Dan Jørgensen’s promised “thorough investigation” suggests Brussels might develop new guidelines to help member states maintain adequacy as renewables soar. The blackout has essentially stress-tested the EU’s resolve on Fit for 55: the answer cannot be to slow the green transition, but rather to double down on the enabling infrastructure. This means channeling funds and regulatory support toward the less visible backbone that holds the green system together.

There will also be a rebalancing of narratives. Climate skeptics seized on the blackout to argue that net-zero policies inherently undermine reliability. They point to sensationalist headlines – like a UK paper’s “Net-zero blamed for blackout chaos” – which, while not accurate in detail, tap into genuine public anxiety. To keep citizens on board with climate action, leaders must show that renewables can coexist with a stable grid. That might involve some humility and course corrections: for instance, acknowledging that gas plants or other firm capacity will play a critical support role for a while longer (and communicating why that doesn’t derail climate goals). Spain’s Prime Minister Sánchez forcefully rejected calls for more nuclear or blaming renewables, labeling such calls ignorant or dishonest. But he and others will also need to reassure people that “this will not happen again”, by outlining concrete measures. Transparency will help — already, REE and the government are sharing unprecedented data about grid incidents (e.g. disclosing those 19-second and 5-second interval events). If the public sees a serious, technical, non-partisan effort to fix the issues, trust can be maintained. In contrast, if blackouts were to recur without visible action, the political backlash could indeed slow the transition.

In a broader sense, Spain’s experience is shaping up to be a case study for the world. Many countries aim to replicate Spain’s renewable successes, from India’s solar push to the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act’s clean energy spree. Each will face the challenge of integrating intermittent sources at scale. The solutions Spain adopts — whether in grid codes, market design (perhaps introducing ancillary service markets for inertia or fast reserves), or cross-border coordination — could inform best practices globally. International energy agencies and think tanks are already poring over the Iberian blackout for lessons. The consensus emerging is that modern grids can technically handle very high renewable shares, but policy and investment must align to deploy the needed tools. It’s not a reason to back off from renewables; it’s a clarion call to update everything around them.

Geopolitically, the incident will likely reinforce Europe’s determination to build an energy union that is both green and secure. The EU’s stance toward Russian gas – essentially “never again” – means there is no turning back to a fossil-fueled comfort zone. Instead, Europe will create buffer capacities: bigger strategic gas storage, yes (for the short term), but more importantly strategic flexibility assets in electricity – akin to a backup fleet that only runs when needed, and robust grid links that allow mutual aid. Europe may also accelerate efforts in emerging tech like green hydrogen as seasonal storage and as a way to provide dispatchable power without CO₂. Spain is at the heart of that, with its future hydrogen infrastructure plan (H2Med) and vast renewables that could produce hydrogen to be stored for winter use or converted back to power in fuel cells or turbines. In effect, Europe’s energy security doctrine is evolving: from “just import gas from elsewhere” to “produce clean energy at home and share it widely, but be prepared with backup when nature lulls”. Diplomacy will support this by smoothing out conflicts like the one with Algeria, strengthening trans-Mediterranean cooperation, and forging alliances for supply chains of critical materials so that building all this new kit (batteries, transformers, etc.) isn’t hampered by new dependencies.

Perhaps the most profound change will be cultural — within the utilities and grid operators. A veteran Spanish grid engineer might have once been most worried about fuel supply or a big generator fault; now their nightmares will be about systemic instability or software glitches in a complex web of decentralized resources. The skillset and mindset needed are changing. REE’s operators famously have kept Spain’s lights on through past challenges (like abruptly cutting off Morocco when Algeria shut the gas pipeline, or managing the 2018 solar eclipse affecting solar PV output). After April 28, they will incorporate new protocols, like surgeons learning from a bad incident in the operating room. Already, ENTSO-E has convened experts to dissect the event second-by-second, and those findings will feed into training and contingency planning across Europe. The concept of N-1 security (the grid can handle losing any one element) might be extended to N-2 or more for high-impact nodes, given how quickly multiple losses cascaded. Blackstart capabilities (how to re-energize after a full collapse) will likely be bolstered, maybe by equipping more small plants or even battery stations to kickstart local islands of the grid.

In closing, the saga of Spain’s “energy security and a suicidal mix” is ultimately one of adaptation. The blackout was a shock, but it can also be seen as the birth pangs of a new energy era. An era in which climate imperatives and security imperatives converge. Spain and Europe will not commit energy suicide; they will adapt and survive. Decarbonization is not at odds with security — it simply demands that we redefine security. Just as nations learned to secure oil tankers and gas pipelines, they must now secure electron and data flows in an increasingly renewable world. Spain’s blackout might have been the dramatic wake-up call to hasten this adaptation. With the right lessons learned, Spain can transform its “suicidal mix” into a sustainable mix that is clean, affordable, and resilient against both the whims of weather and the unexpected flickers of fate. The lights in Europe’s green future must not only be powered by the sun and wind but also be unflinchingly steady, come what may.

Sources:

Reuters – “How warning signs hinted at Spain's unprecedented power outage”
Reuters – “Spain, Portugal switch back on, seek answers after biggest ever blackout”
Al Jazeera – “Spain’s grid denies renewable energy to blame for massive blackout”
The Guardian – “Spain and Portugal power outage: what caused it, and was there a cyber-attack?”
Science Media Centre – Expert reaction to power outages across Spain and Portugal
Carbon Brief – “Q&A: What we do – and do not – know about the blackout in Spain and Portugal”
ABC (Spain) – “Las energéticas alertaron ... de un ‘mix suicida’”
ANS Nuclear Newswire – “Spain, Portugal seek answers following massive power outage”
El Periódico de la Energía – “El Gobierno desoyó la petición de REE de cambiar el protocolo...”
International Energy Agency – Spain 2021 Energy Policy Review
Financial Times – “Spain and Portugal blackout a wake-up call on grid resilience”

Gratitude is our heartbeat.

Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.

Help us stay loud:

One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.

One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).

Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.

Thank you for keeping the flame alive.

https://x.com/Germantoroghio/status/1915515888515899541

Germán & Co 5/2/25 Germán & Co 5/2/25

The Enigmatic Bestiary of the Blackout…

¨Venezuela’s blackout? Blame it on a rogue iguana seeking revenge against humanity, perhaps fresh from a failed audition for Sharknado 7: Reptilian Revolt. “I’ll show them I’m not just a lizard!” it hissed, munching on a power line.

But that’s not all! Spain's “eternal sun” has also been extinguished—this time by a lynx craving electrical paella. “Cables? Delicious! They taste like progress!” growled the lynx, who is reportedly in talks with Netflix for Bird Box 2: Furry Grid Crash.

In short, no aliens here—Earth’s wildlife is staging a heist on our power grids. Next up? A koala has knocked out Australia’s internet, mistaking fiber optics for eucalyptus. Stay tuned!

¨First, Venezuela’s blackout? The work of a rogue iguana with a vendetta against humanity and the wrong system, probably fresh off a failed audition for Sharknado 7: Reptilian Revolt. “I’ll show them ‘just a lizard’!” it hissed, while chewing through a power line like it was auditioning for Naked and Afraid: Power Grid Edition.

But wait! The plot thickens faster than a sloth on espresso. Now Spain's "eternal sun" has been extinguished by... wait for it... a lynx with a sudden craving for electrical paella. "Cables? Delicious! They taste like progress and reflect poor planning for the traditional Spanish cocido!" growled the lynx, who is now reportedly in talks with Netflix for Bird Box 2: Furry Grid Crash.

So, to recap: No aliens. Earth’s wildlife is going whole Ocean’s 11 on our power grids. Next up? A koala has taken out Australia’s internet by mistaking fiber optics for eucalyptus. Stay tuned, folks…

Gratitude is our heartbeat.

Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.

Help us stay loud:

One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.

One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).

Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.

Thank you for keeping the flame alive.

https://x.com/Germantoroghio/status/1918274630856462504

Don't worry, my friend! Even though I am a reptile and you are a big cat, we are both part of this beautiful world and have our own value. Let's respect our differences!

By Germán & Co.
Karlstad, Sweden | May 2, 2025

________________________________________

I. The bestiary of the blackout

A half‑scorched iguana, a kamikaze vervet monkey, a weasel incinerated in the bowels of CERN, legions of electrocuted North‑American squirrels, nesting crows dismantling Tokyo’s overhead lines, an Iberian lynx reputed to fancy photovoltaic cabling—our era has no shortage of quadruped “terrorists” and feathered “saboteurs.” With every spectacular outage, social networks reel off the same pantomime: pictures of the unlucky beast, ironic hashtags and, invariably, the insinuation that the animal kingdom has opened a new front in its millennial resistance to the human techno‑sphere.

The surreal procession would be merely entertaining were it not for the political expediency that often accompanies it. In March 2019, when Venezuela descended into its worst blackout on record, officials floated the theory of an “iguana attack” on the high‑voltage lines that fan out from the Guri hydroelectric complex. Their narrative evaporated under the weight of subsequent investigations pointing to untrimmed vegetation, neglected backup plants and chronic under‑investment—but the reptilian scapegoat lingered in the collective imagination.

Months later and half a world away, Kenya Power attributed a four‑hour nationwide outage to “a monkey falling on a transformer.” In Switzerland, technicians at the Large Hadron Collider located the remains of a marten in a sub‑station after the accelerator tripped. Each episode re‑animated a folkloric dramaturgy in which non‑human actors, possessed of obscure motives, are recast as antagonists in the human pursuit of progress.

Yet the zoological spin, however comical, performs a serious ideological function: it displaces responsibility from systems to creatures, from political choices to accidents of nature. The Caracas iguana provided a ready‑made foil for an administration anxious to divert attention from decades of maintenance neglect; the Kenyan vervet monkey allowed the utility to avoid uncomfortable questions about grid redundancy. In each case, the anecdote imagines collapse as an act of external malice rather than an immanent property of brittle infrastructure.

II. Iberia’s hour of darkness

At 12:17 p.m. on Monday, 28 April 2025, electricity frequency monitors across the Iberian Peninsula registered a violent wobble. Within five seconds, the Spanish grid had ejected an estimated 15 gigawatts—roughly 60 per cent of national demand—as photovoltaic inverters, wind turbines and finally two nuclear reactors disconnected in self‑defence. Trains stopped between stations; lifts froze between floors; data centres flipped to diesel generators.
By nightfall, supply had been restored to 99 per cent of consumers, but the symbolism of Europe’s renewables poster child plunged into darkness could not be more charged. WIRED

In the first 24 hours, blame ricocheted between ministries, grid operator Red Eléctrica de España (REE), and the major utilities. The conservative daily ABC leaked correspondence showing that, six days earlier, energy companies had warned REE of “anomalies of the same nature” as those that would later cascade through the system—warnings the operator answered only after three days, with a laconic assurance that “all parameters remain within norms. ”Diario ABC Diario ABC

Government spokespeople, anxious to shield the green agenda on which Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has staked his legacy, denounced “lies” linking the blackout to high shares of solar and wind. Euronews, Reuters and Wired offered more measured accounts: the fault appeared to originate in “two abrupt disconnections of generation” one‑and‑a‑half seconds apart, triggering protection relays faster than human operators could react.

While investigations unfold, one technical detail is beyond dispute. At noon on 28 April, solar photovoltaics supplied 60 per cent of the Iberian load, yet fewer than 3 per cent of those megawatts enjoyed local battery support. When the first inverter sensed a frequency excursion and dropped out, the others obeyed their firmware and followed suit; in the absence of spinning steel to damp the perturbation, the frequency nose‑dived, forcing nuclear and wind units to trip on under‑frequency protection. Within moments, Spain experienced, at a continental scale, what engineers describe as “grid‑forming collapse.”

III. From inertia to electronics: anatomy of a fragile transition

Electrical grids evolved for a century around the principle of synchronous rotation: the same turbines that produce power also embody kinetic energy, acting as a flywheel that smooths perturbations. A standard‑issue 1 GW turbo‑alternator stores roughly 3,000 megajoules in its rotor—a mechanical buffer that grants operators precious seconds to stabilise disturbances.

Photovoltaics, in contrast, inject direct current converted to alternating current by solid‑state inverters that possess no inertia of their own. Once equipped with fixed‑speed induction generators, wind turbines now predominantly use doubly‑fed or full‑converter systems that likewise decouple blade inertia from grid frequency. In theory, inverters can be programmed to emulate inertia (“virtual synchronous machines”) or to form voltage and frequency autonomously, but the requisite software and oversized power electronics add cost. Like most jurisdictions, Spain has preferred the cheaper “grid‑following” design, leaving the task of frequency regulation to whatever synchronous fleet remains online.

The April blackout, therefore, dramatises a contradiction at the heart of the European Green Deal: the race to pack ever more variable renewables into a system whose stabilising scaffolding—hydro reservoirs, gas turbines, nuclear rotors—shrinks under the pressure of climate policy and market liberalisation. Between 2010 and 2025, the Iberian Peninsula retired 9.3 GW of coal; gas plants that now run at capacity factors below 15 per cent, their fixed costs recouped through “capacity payments” that satisfy accountants but not turbine manufacturers. Two of Spain’s seven nuclear units were in long‑scheduled refuelling outages on 28 April; another pair had been inexplicably curtailed by dispatch instructions that sought to “showcase the renewables fleet,” according to industry sources quoted by ABC. Diario ABC

In other words, the blackout was neither an act of zoological sabotage nor a fluke: it was the foreseeable outcome of policy choices that allowed inverter‑dominated capacity to surge ahead of the flexibility—batteries, flywheels, pumped‑hydro, synchronous condensers—needed to anchor it.

IV. The political economy of blame

Early commentary split along ideological grooves. Conservative media emphasised “the suicidal mix” and called for an immediate moratorium on new solar farms until batteries are mandated; green NGOs accused REE of under‑investing in grid digitalisation and cross‑border interconnectors, noting that Spain’s tie‑lines to France and Portugal amount to barely 3 percent of peak load, far below the EU’s 15 percent target. WIRED

The government, committed to 81 per cent renewable electricity by 2030, framed the outage as an unfortunate but isolated hiccup. Yet the clash obscures a subtler antagonism: under liberalised electricity markets, no actor bears clear responsibility for “system inertia.” Grid operators may specify frequency‑ride‑through parameters, but they cannot compel private developers to over‑size inverters or co‑locate batteries unless regulators create new revenue streams. Likewise, merchant solar owners have no incentive to sacrifice daytime output to stabilise the grid when the pool price is at its peak.

Thus the blackout illuminates a governance vacuum: the state has retreated to a referee role, utilities have fragmented into asset‑lite generators, and consumers—told that the cheapest kilowatt‑hour is ipso facto the greenest—discover that the short‑run marginal cost of solar omits the system cost of keeping the lights on.

V. Zoology as ideology: the uses of the animal metaphor

Why, then, does the figure of the “terrorist animal” recur so persistently? Part of the answer lies in journalism’s appetite for “news of the weird,” but deeper currents are at work. First, animals furnish an external, seemingly apolitical antagonist; blaming a squirrel absolves the market reforms and state neglect. The second motif dovetails with a cultural undercurrent that anthropomorphises nature as an agent of revenge in the Anthropocene—an ecological sublime updated for the age of high‑speed connectivity.

Yet, stopping at cultural analysis would overlook the material interface between ecology and infrastructure. Power lines, photovoltaic parks, substations and fibre ducts splice the built environment into habitats, often providing micro‑niches attractive to opportunistic species. The same renewable boom that promises decarbonisation is paving deserts with reflective panels that attract curious ungulates; off‑shore wind arrays alter migratory patterns of birds and bats. In that sense, the animal incursion is not an “external shock” but the ecological feedback of territorial expansion.

VI. Comparative zoological‑technical chronicle

Incidents in which animals are blamed for disrupting critical infrastructure reveal an intriguing pattern: the shakier the governance behind the grid, the more unusual the creature pressed into service as a scapegoat.

Back in 2016, a lone vervet monkey leapt onto poorly protected equipment at a Kenyan hydroelectric station and triggered a nationwide blackout—an accident made possible by flimsy perimeter fencing and a fatal single‑point‑of‑failure design. Three years later, as Venezuela’s state utility Corpoelec staggered under sanctions, chronic under‑maintenance and politicized appointments, officials pointed to an errant iguana on an 800 kV transmission corridor to explain yet another collapse of the national system. The reptile was a convenient diversion from deeper structural decay.

Compare that with 2020, when CERN’s 400 kV substation near Geneva went offline after a curious beech marten gnawed through aging insulation. The episode was greeted with wry humour, swiftly dissected in public-facing reports, and folded into a transparent plan for hardening the site—no hand‑waving required.

Routine but revealing cases keep appearing. In 2022, a rash of squirrel contacts with overhead, uninsulated distribution feeders in the United States underscored how ordinary vegetation management lapses can still spark outages across a modern grid. The ironic rumour that an Iberian lynx might one day claw through DC cabling at a Spanish solar‑PV farm—projected for 2025—has already circulated online. The story is almost certainly apocryphal, yet its very popularity shows how people crave tidy, animal‑centric narratives while engineers wrestle with more abstract concerns such as inertia deficits and frequency stability.

Taken together, the anecdotes expose a larger truth: where technical resilience is high and institutions are transparent, animal mishaps become quirky footnotes; where systems and oversight are fragile, exotic fauna turn into convenient villains.

VII. From analogy to analysis: what Spain tells us about the global transition

Spain is hardly alone. California’s “duck curve” forced the state to procure 5 GW of four‑hour lithium‑ion storage, yet its August 2020 rolling blackouts still exposed the perils of simultaneous heatwaves and transmission constraints. South‑Australia, hailed for achieving 66 percent renewable penetration, survived a September 2016 system black thanks to emergency islanding—but only after tornado‑induced line faults cascaded through wind farm protective relays. In each case, the technical dossier reads differently. Still, the strategic diagnosis converges: as variable renewables scale beyond 40 per cent, planners must either retain enough synchronous plant to ride through disturbances or replace the mechanical inertia with fast‑responding storage.

Seven levers for a resilient transition

Mandate “grid‑forming” capability in all new inverter‑based resources above a threshold capacity, with procurement auctions that remunerate inertia as a service.
Impose on‑site storage quotas: 10–20 percent of AC rating for utility‑scale PV and wind, with minimum two‑hour duration and state‑of‑charge guarantees.
Expand synchronous condensers and flywheels in weak nodes to provide fault current and voltage support.
Re‑design protection logic: Move from binary trip thresholds to graded frequency and voltage ride‑through, coupled with local controls that modulate rather than disconnect.
Strengthen interconnection: The 3 per cent cross‑border capacity that currently links Iberia to France must quadruple to reach Nordic and Benelux levels.
Cultivate demand‑side elasticity: Dynamic tariffs and automated load shedding can share the burden of frequency regulation.
Re‑politicise grid governance: recognise inertia as a public good requiring deliberate planning, not merely the emergent property of private bids in a spot market.

VIII. The geopolitics of copper, lithium and control systems

Behind the technical prescriptions lies a geopolitical substrate. Europe’s dash for batteries depends on lithium, cobalt, and nickel extracted under social‑ecological regimes that are no less contentious than oil. The power converters that render renewables intelligible to the grid embed micro‑controllers often fabricated in East Asian foundries. And the real‑time operating systems that orchestrate frequency response run on software stacks vulnerable to zero‑day exploits; the spectre of cyber‑attack, waved away by Spanish officials, cannot be dismissed in an era when Stuxnet is public knowledge.

Thus, while the zoological metaphor distracts, the digital predator advances unseen. The Configuration Management Database of a modern sub‑station counts tens of thousands of firmware instances; a single unpatched library could, in principle, give a foreign actor leverage over entire regions. The April blackout was not a cyber‑incident—investigations so far rule out malicious code—but its clean, mechanical origin should not lull planners into complacency. A system that collapses from a benign frequency deviation will fare no better against coordinated intrusion.

IX. Ecological counter‑narratives: from enmity to coexistence

Le Monde Diplomatique has long resisted the binary of progress versus wilderness. The trope of “animal sabotage” can be inverted: non‑human agency, far from inimical, might serve as an early‑warning sensor for infrastructural fragility. In south‑eastern Brazil, researchers install acoustic recorders on transmission pylons to monitor bird colonies whose stress calls correlate with line corona discharge, a precursor of insulation failure. In Scotland, power companies deploy camera traps that identify pine marten activity and schedule preventive maintenance before chewing damage occurs. The thin line between “pest” and “sentinel” is a matter of governance, not biology.

One could imagine a Mediterranean future in which Iberian lynxes, fitted with non‑invasive GPS collars, alert grid operators to hotspots of electromagnetic interference; in which crow flight paths guide the undergrounding of vulnerable feeders; in which solar parks reserve corridors for migratory ungulates rather than ring‑fencing themselves with electrified wire that both harms fauna and collects dust.

X. Memory, accountability, and the politics of invisibility

Blackouts, unlike wars or pandemics, leave few monuments. Once lights return, the collective desire is to forget. Yet the April event joins a lineage of infrastructural breakdowns that mark the Anthropocene’s deepening contradiction: We demand ever-faster electrification to avert climate catastrophe, yet we overlook the metabolic rifts this acceleration opens in the socio‑technical fabric.

Memory work is, therefore, political: Naming the outage an act of “lynx sabotage” erases the institutional genealogy of cost‑cutting, privatisation, and lobbying that made the grid brittle. Insisting on technical nuance is to reclaim public deliberation from both sensationalism and technocratic opacity.

XI. Toward a democratic energetics

Ironically, the blackout came on the eve of Spain’s Labour Day. In Valencia, demonstrators marched under banners demanding “Energía popular, no Cortes” (People’s energy, no cuts). Their slogans gesture toward a broader democratization: not merely community ownership of renewables but participation in the protocols that govern dispatch, protection, and investment.

A democratic energetics would treat inertia and reserve margins as commons, financed by transparent and progressive tariffs rather than regressive fixed charges. It would couple redistribution with ecological repair, dedicating portions of network profit to habitat restoration around pylons and dams. And it would cultivate technical literacy, so that the next time daylight vanishes, citizens can parse telemetry charts instead of viral memes about carnivorous cables.

XII. Conclusion: from fable to praxis

Animals will continue to gnaw, perch, burrow, and nest around our machines; power lines will arc, inverters will trip, and electrons will follow the fundamental laws of physics. Whether these events lead to widespread disaster or are local issues will depend less on animal behavior and more on the redundancy, regulation, and reciprocity systems we establish.

The iguana in Guri, the weasel at CERN, and the mythical lynx of Extremadura serve as narrative devices—reflecting how societies perceive their underlying infrastructure. To eliminate the fear of "animal terrorism," we must confront our ambivalence toward the technologies that support our lives. The blackout on April 28, 2025, provides a harsh but essential lesson: pursuing decarbonization without careful planning can extinguish the very lights meant to guide us toward a sustainable future.

Therefore, it would be wise to stop blaming animals or aliens or cyberattacks and instead focus on the intricate details of kilowatts and kilowatt-hours and the elegant motion of rotating steel while also welcoming the real lynxes back to the Dehesa. Only by integrating ecology, equity, and engineering can we advance electrification without leading ourselves into both literal and metaphorical darkness.

Sources consulted: REE preliminary incident bulletin; reports in Wired, Reuters, ABC, Euronews, AFP/TechXplore, Carbon Brief on the 28 April blackout; historical analysis of the Venezuelan 2019 blackout (Mongabay, Wikipedia); comparative grid‑failure literature.

Gratitude is our heartbeat.

Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.

Help us stay loud:

One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.

One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).

Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.

Thank you for keeping the flame alive.

https://x.com/Germantoroghio/status/1915515888515899541

Executive Summary

Just a Single Penny in 2025—Yet the Work Burns Bright

The times are uncertain. The need for clarity is not.

The clash of two worlds

Two portraits, according to Lagarde

The origins of their strategies

A wounded president

The energy war

Cards on the table

Possible scenarios

The post-summit spin

Spassky and Fischer in Alaska

Epilogue: A midsummer dream in the Arctic

The Author:

You can't possibly deny me...

Executive Summary

Pulitzer Prize for genocide denial. Three point nine million dead. Say it again — three point nine million.

Just a Single Penny in 2025—Yet the Work Burns Bright

The times are uncertain. The need for clarity is not.

EPILOGUE: THE HUMAN CONDITION

The Author:

You can't possibly deny me...

The Trump over the Bygg Sting EU.

Executive Summary

Not a Single Penny Has Found Its Way into Our Piggy Bank in 2025

Under the clear-eyed wisdom of Aristotle—who in Nicomachean Ethics celebrated generosity as the art of giving just the right amount, to the right cause, at the perfect moment—we declare with steadfast resolve: throughout all of 2025, not one penny of support has graced our coffers.

Timeline: Key Events Ahead of the Alaska Summit

Introduction: The $750 Billion Energy Prelude

The Alaska Gambit: Territory for "Peace"

Constraints to Acceptance:

The AI Chip Corridor: Tech for Toll

Energy Security vs. Territorial Security

Why Play a Losing Hand?

Europe and Denmark Push Back

Energy Market Consequences

Historical Analogies Examined

Three Energy-Influenced Scenarios

The $750 Billion Contradiction

Denmark & EU: Small-State Lessons

Contradiction as Strategy

A Road to Responsible Resolution

Warning to Other Nations: Don't Fall Into the Same Trap

You can't possibly deny me...

Mental illnesses — an unseen crisis that breaks families apart and leaves lives in ruins.

Shabbat Reflections:

Peace, Memory and the Weight of History Between Gaza and the Memory of History

Not a Single Penny Has Found Its Way into Our Piggy Bank in 2025

Under the clear-eyed wisdom of Aristotle—who in Nicomachean Ethics celebrated generosity as the art of giving just the right amount, to the right cause, at the perfect moment—we declare with steadfast resolve: throughout all of 2025, not one penny of support has graced our coffers.

Life is a wild mind’s fever, only soothed by diving deeper into its vibrant chaos.

A Novella

Chapter I: The Balearic Sun The sun. Blinding over the largest of the Balearics.

Chapter II: Flashback - Oslo, January 1979 Six months earlier.

Chapter III: Manhattan, February 1979 Five months earlier.

Chapter IV: Diego - Witness to His Generation

Chapter V: The Liberation Soundtrack

Chapter VI: Goya's Gallery Under the Sun

Chapter VII: The Foreigners - Ambassadors of New Europe

Chapter VIII: Capote fuerte - The Mediterranean Incarnate.

Chapter IX: Alexandra in Magaluf - The Existential Laboratory

Chapter X: The Encounter of Broken Souls

Chapter XI: Dawn: The Ritual of Endings Dawn was approaching.

Chapter XII: The Seat 500 and Philosopher

Chapter XIII: Exodus to Sand

You can't possibly deny me...

The incredible surge of solar power in Kenya

Key Insights

Not a Single Penny Has Found Its Way into Our Piggy Bank in 2025

Under the clear-eyed wisdom of Aristotle—who in Nicomachean Ethics celebrated generosity as the art of giving just the right amount, to the right cause, at the perfect moment—we declare with steadfast resolve: throughout all of 2025, not one penny of support has graced our coffers.

#RutoEnergyForKenyaTransformation

The Geothermal Backbone

Policy Catalyst: Ruto’s Green Industrial Vision

While geothermal anchors the grid, solar is scaling rapidly:

Investment Landscape

The Replicable Model

Market Projections

Investor Takeaways

You can't possibly deny me...

Key Insights

Not a Single Penny Has Found Its Way into Our Piggy Bank in 2025

Under the clear-eyed wisdom of Aristotle—who in Nicomachean Ethics celebrated generosity as the art of giving just the right amount, to the right cause, at the perfect moment—we declare with steadfast resolve: throughout all of 2025, not one penny of support has graced our coffers.

Pulitzer Prize for genocide denial.
Three point nine million dead.
Say it again — three point nine million.