this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2026
49 points (100.0% liked)

Europe

11602 readers
583 users here now

News and information from Europe πŸ‡ͺπŸ‡Ί

(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)

Rules (2024-08-30)

  1. This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
  2. No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
  3. Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
  4. No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
  5. Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
  6. If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
  7. Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
  8. Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
  9. No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
  10. Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.

(This list may get expanded as necessary.)

Posts that link to the following sources will be removed

Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com

(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)

Ban lengths, etc.

We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.

If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.

If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the admin that applied the rule (check modlog first to find who was it.)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] the_Interceptor@lemmus.org 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I was curious about this article so I did some digging. I learned a lot about gas imports and I'd like to share it with you.

First, this article and its numbers are factually correct. However, it lacks context ant thus paints a picture that's different from reality.

About gas imports in general:

  • Natural gas is imported in two ways: in its natural gaseous form by gas pipelines and in liquid form (LNG = liquified natural gas) by LNG ships.

  • LNG is much denser than the gas in its natural state, but also much more difficult to make. The natural gas needs to be chilled to below -161 Β°C (-258 Β°F) to become liquid. It is then transported by LNG ships. At its destination, it needs to be regasified to become natural gas again.

  • As import of natural gas via pipelines is much easier, import contracts tend to be short(er)-term. The much more complicated process of making and transporting LNG leads to long(er)-term import contracts to allow economic viability and stability for all involved parties.

About gas imports into the EU from Russia:

  • Since Russia's attack on Ukraine in 2022, the total amount of EU gas imports (natural gas via pipelines + LNG transported via ships and then regassified) from Russia has decreased significantly. Here are the imported amounts from Russia per year (in billion cubic meters = bcm):
    • 2019: 203 bcm (186 bcm pipeline gas, 17 bcm LNG)
    • 2020: 162 bcm (148 bcm pipeline gas, 14 bcm LNG)
    • 2021: 157 bcm (144 bcm pipeline gas, 13 bcm LNG)
    • 2022: 83 bcm (65 bcm pipeline gas, 18 bcm LNG)
    • 2023: 46 bcm (27 bcm pipeline gas, 19 bcm LNG)
    • 2024: 54 bcm (33 bcm pipeline gas, 21 bcm LNG)
    • 2025: 38 bcm (18 bcm pipeline gas, 20 bcm LNG)
    • 2026 (first half): 22 bcm (9 bcm pipeline gas, 13 bcm LNG)
  • The Yamal facility in Russia is owned by different parties, thus financial interests are diverse:
    • 50.1% belong to the Russian natural gas producer Novatek
    • 20% belong to the French company Total Energies
    • 20% belong to the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC)
    • 9.9% belong to the Chinese 'Silk Road' fund.
  • The EU put sanctions on importing gas from Russia. However, contracts for gas imports are legal agreements with repercussions if contracts are breached. Thus, abrupt total stop of importing gas in whichever form would lead to enormous penalty payments for breach of contract. Therefore, the EU put transitional periods in place so long-term contracts can be fulfilled while other sources for gas can be established.
  • Before 2022, out of 100% of imported Russian gas more than 90% came in its natural form via pipelines, so less than 10% came as LNG. As pipeline gas contracts are short(er)-term and also made up the majority of imports, the EU went to cut those first. In fact, out of 4 natural gas pipelines from Russia to the EU (Nordstream, Turkstream, Ukraine Transit and Yamal natural gas), only Turkstream still delivers to Europe. The long(er)-term LNG contracts are still in place, thus LNG imports remained stable over the years, yet ending on January 1, 2027 as per the article.

So yes, the article states facts. That said, the total amount of gas imports from Russia has gone down by roughly 75% when comparing the pre-war to the post-war period, and it will decline further when the LNG import ban becomes effective on Jan 1, 2027. As per the article, pipeline imports from Russia are banned from September 2027. So it's not like the EU keeps happily buying Russian gas in droves as if nothing happened. Imports have already been reduced massively and will seize in 2027. Is this ideal? No. But this is the economic reality.

The article:

While factually correct, I find the article misleading when it states that "(...) Russian pipeline gas [imports] increased 7% year-on-year in January to May 2026, while Russian LNG imports rose by 11%, (...)". Yes, this is factually true as far as I can confirm it with the data I have. In Q1+Q2 2025, 8.3 bcm of pipeline gas were imported, in Q1+Q2 2026, 8.7 bcm were imported via pipeline. In in the same quarters of 2024 it was 15.8 bcm, 2023 it was 11.3 bcm, 2022 it was 48.4 bcm and so on. Before the war it was between 71 bcm and 94 bcm. In my opinion, picking these specific periods in 2025 and 2026 and stating percentages instead of total amounts is, while factually correct, questionable.

In a similar fashion, yes, LNG imports also have risen, even by more than 11% according to my data. The gas storage is quite low in the EU right now (lower than in the last 4 years at this time of year) and LNG shipments from the middle east are questionable right now due to the situation at the Strait of Hormuz. With LNG imports from Russia being banned by the end of this year, the EU countries will naturally ramp up their LNG imports, also from Russia, and not only because contracts still need to be fulfilled. Thus, yes, current LNG import from Russia is at a "record level", but pipeline gas import has decreased massively in the last years, thus overall gas imports from Russia are down. Since LNG imports always only made up less than 10% of the total gas imports from Russia, a "record level of LNG" is still a low overall amount of gas.

I recommend to read this article, it was my data source. It has interactive diagrams, also all data can be downloaded as XLSX/CSV files for further analysis. Very interesting insight.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 12 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Imagine how fast Russia would surrender, if the EU could just stop buying their fucking oil and gas for a minute?

[–] JensSpahnpasta@feddit.org 14 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The EU from April banned Russian LNG imports under short-term contracts, but imports ​under long-term contracts can continue until January 1, 2027.

Let's see

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It's really interesting that all the official declarations coming out of the EU about this...going all the way back to the beginning of the war...have all stated that they are phasing out or cancelling their dependency on Russian oil. But then, six months later, all the independent reports seem to indicate the exact opposite is actually happening.

It's a broken record, just repeating the same line over and over, but never actually getting past that point.

[–] Nomad@infosec.pub 2 points 3 days ago (2 children)

You understand the EU is a humongous entity with a load of moving parts and actually a democracy without a dictator Donny? It takes time to coordinate you know?

Wanna do something? Join solar punk, get a few panels and some storage. Buy and electric bike, reduce power usage. Plant a few trees Every bit helps.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

This isn't a matter of "getting all the parts moving"...it's a matter of even starting to move in the direction they say they are.

It's like watching an alcoholic saying they're going to quit this time, for real...and then watching them drink even more the next day.

[–] Nomad@infosec.pub 2 points 3 days ago

You know your example works very well. An alcoholic will die if he quits cold turkey is he is really addicted. The EU member states are quite addicted to Russian energy and finding alternatives will take some pain. Its a multi step process like quitting addiction is.

[–] plyth@feddit.org -1 points 3 days ago (2 children)

You understand the EU is a humongous entity

Unless it is about chat control, then they quickly find solutions.

[–] brad_troika@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

According to fightchatcontrol.eu they first proposed chat control in 2022.

[–] plyth@feddit.org 2 points 3 days ago

It was temporary, and they quickly found a solution to continue it. That mental agility could be applied to energy supplies, too.

https://feddit.org/post/32613173

EU parliament lets Meta and Google keep scanning users’ messages, in a win for β€˜Chat Control’ backers. What it means – and why it matters

[–] Nomad@infosec.pub 1 points 3 days ago

That has been backdoored, which happens in the US daily. Its angering a lot of people and I hope it won't stand. This has some Donny qualities and the responsible CSU politician will hopefully get a beating for that.

[–] Melchior@feddit.org 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Last month the EU made up 11% of Russia fossil fuel purchases. The honest answer is that Russia is not going to surrender, if those purchases stop.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Except, they're already hemorrhaging funds right now. The entire economy is already running on debt, and now their oil and gas production has been almost cut in half. Losing another 11% would be devastating.

But, I agree they are not going to surrender. Putin will drive the country into bankruptcy before he admits defeat. The same stubborn pride led to the fall of the Soviet Union. Then it was Afghanistan, and this time Ukraine.

[–] Melchior@feddit.org 1 points 3 days ago

https://www.russiafossiltracker.com/

That are Russian oil exports. So the volume has not changed much over the years and production certainly has not halved. They just get paid less for the oil. However as you can clearly see a 11% drop in sales to the EU, would probably just be replaced by some other customer. They pay less, but Russia will not have a 11% drop in fossil fuel profits.

This is not to say sanctions do not work. However right now, the key is keeping up sanctions and supporting Ukraines long range drone campaign. Not getting spare parts for refineries makes those much more effective.

[–] plyth@feddit.org 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Imagine how fast Russia would surrender, if the EU could just stop buying their fucking oil and gas for a minute?

China has said that they cannot allow Russia to lose. It could be for a reason:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History

China had a trillion trade surplus. They can finance Russia longer than the EU can finance Ukraine.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Would Russia accept that, though? China would literally own them.

Besides, China doesn't have the capacity to process or even store that much oil and gas. As much as they're buying right now, they would have to double it to cover the loss of the EU market...and they are nowhere near capable of accepting that much. Long before they managed to scale up their capacity to meet that supply, Russia would either have to withdraw from Ukraine or go bankrupt.

[–] plyth@feddit.org 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Would Russia accept that, though? China would literally own them.

That's imperialist thinking. We ascribe it to Russia, but let's not forget that Putin was KGB. They could do a communist revival, this time with China as the more powerful partner.

But:

Besides, China doesn’t have the capacity to process or even store that much oil and gas.

China doesn't have to buy gas. They can finance Russia directly. If Russia is beaten and shifts to the West, China has a serious security problem. So maybe China just hands over money.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

That's a lot of very bad economics you're talking about. Right now, Russia has been dumping money into a deepening hole, and getting nothing back...and their economy is starting to collapse.

What you're suggesting is that China starts dumping money into that exact same hole, and getting the exact same nothing back. China will soon find its own economy in the same situation that Russia is in. Backing Russia unconditionally like that, will eventually become an anchor dragging them down. It is not sustainable, even for a country like China.

[–] plyth@feddit.org 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The West is equally dumping money. Whoever wins will control Asia and its resources, according to the above linked strategy.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That's true. The difference is, the West is also making money from it.

[–] plyth@feddit.org 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

In which way? Right now money is shifted from the EU to the US and Ukraine is accumulating dept. The West, in total, doesn't make money, only the weapon manufacturers

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Weapons manufacturing is a significant percentage of GDP in the countries involved in supplying those weapons. That's what makes the military industrial complex so successful, and insidious.

And right now, Ukraine is becoming more and more important in that cycle of funding. They are on the cutting edge of cheap drone manufacturing. Everyone wants what they're making...and the investments are already rolling in. Both Ukraine and the countries supplying them with supplementary weapons systems, are all making bank off of each other.

[–] plyth@feddit.org 1 points 2 days ago

People can be paid to digg holes and fill one with the dirt from another. That creates GDP, but only with surplus money that could be spent more productively.

Or from the other side, Russia and Iran are also building drones that other people want, and China is supplying everybody with the parts.

Ignoring the economy, the war will escalate, and the only thing that will matter is, who can deliver more drones to the front.

I think China will be able to produce more, but the transport will be the bottleneck since the West will close China's access to the sea and there is a limit to what can be delivered by train.

[–] Quantillion@mstdn.io 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

@Archangel1313 @plyth
The problem with the arms industry generally is that while it contributes to an apparent "GDP" growth & makes billionaires of its shareholders, in terms of overall ROI for the people of the countries it "serves", it is zero-sum. There is NO ROI. Because arms' singular purpose is to destroy, not build.
The arms race (to the bottom) is ultimately the total failure of diplomacy: the wrong people are in charge. Everywhere.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That's not necessarily true. Obviously, the people at the top make the lion's share of the profits...that's just the unfortunate reality behind all Capitalism. But military technology requires an enormous amount of supply chain infrastructure to produce. There are entire downstream industries that support those manufacturers, that also support a ton of completely unrelated industries as well. Without those primary industries, all the others would be severely underfunded.

Economies are like ecosystems. Every part contributes to the overall health of every other part, either directly or indirectly. And unfortunately in most countries that have a military industrial complex, the weapons industry acts like a keystone species. Get rid of that, and entire branches of the national supply chain simply cease to exist, and all the jobs associated with them also disappear.

The unfortunate reality that this creates, is a dependency on war, in order to maintain economic stability. That's why countries like the US simply rotate between different enemies...only ever letting peacetime last long enough to restock weapons stockpiles, before moving onto another target.

[–] Quantillion@mstdn.io 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

@Archangel1313
I don't agree with you at all. :ablobsmile: The MIC is a virus in the ecosystem. There is nothing to prevent investment in downstream & related industries anyway, without the MIC. Referring to them being productive as an excuse to justify the MIC is ignoring the massive overall LOSS to all military-driven & -affected economies.
That said, we as yet do not have a viable response to the literally (& *growing*) *capitalist* reflex for more war machines & more wars.🀷

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago

I don't think you understand what I was saying. I wasn't making an endorsement...just an explanation. It's not something you need to agree with, in order to understand.

Of course there are better ways to build an economy. The unfortunate reality however, is that a sizable portion of the US economy is currently dependent on the MIC to function. It's not that easy to just "change".

It would be like wanting to turn one kind of forest into another kind of forest, just because you like the other kind of trees better. I mean, yeah...you can cut down all the trees and replant them with another variety...but that ecosystem will take a long time to reestablish itself, and some of what depended on those original trees will never recover.

Should it be done...yes. But, will the people in charge of making those decisions actually do it? Probably not. Those politicians were elected to represent those communities that currently depend on those industries for their livelihoods. Those people obviously don't want to lose their jobs...and their representatives obviously aren't going to do anything that's going to negatively impact their local economy. The status quo is self-reinforcing.

It's easy to say, "just find different jobs for everyone to do"...but it's enormously difficult to actually do. This is what makes it an "economic dependency". If you cut those local economies off from their current revenue stream...they probably won't survive the withdrawal.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

Maybe it's time for some more Ukrainian sanctions on Russian exports?

[–] Hirom@beehaw.org 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The Ukraine war would have played our diffetently had Europe reduced its reliance on fossiel fuels decades ago. The continent is paying for its short-sightedness.

[–] Ooops@feddit.org 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Why would Russia react differently knowing that the majority of Europeans are brain-washed idiots easily manipulated by bots.

Russia sells <10% of their (already deminished, too) exports to Europe, yet an idiotic article without any actual references makes you believe that Europe is failing and has to be blamed. Sanctions totally demolished Russian imports, yet for years we get articles hallucinating how the import increases in neighbouring countries obviously circumvent those sanctions - even when in reality those increases make up less than 1% in total of what Russia lost, so the actual story should have been that they are 99%+ effective.

It's always the same pattern: "Look, big number! Be angry!! Europe bad!!!" And it works -as can be seen by all the comments here- every single time. Or did you actually stop one second to check those numbers in relation to former imports? Or in relation to Russia's output? Or did you even notice that the article very much avoids to give any reference for their numbers in the first place?

Being obviously unable to annex Ukraine, not even in the planned few days but at all, did not stop them from continuing. But losing about 5% of their already failing economy that is now basically tailored to producing weapons for the war exclusively would totally have made them stop. Sure...

[–] Hirom@beehaw.org 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

You seem to be putting words in my mouth, ie I don't think sanctions failed, so I'm going to ignore the conclusions you make from that.

A breakdown of my comment :

The war would have played differently if dedaces ago, ie BEFORE the start of the war, european countries had reduced their reliance on fossiel fuel.

In 2020, the EU was Russia's biggest trading partners, and fossil fuels were a large chunk of EU import. It took years of sanctions, of setting up alternative energy import deals, and of electrification efforts, to get a points where Russia-EU trades are a small parts of today's total trades.

During those 4 years, Ukraine severely suffered from Russian's invasion, and Russia was cashing in on energy export to the EU. Less export and less revenue from exports would have it more difficult for Russia to finance war, and easier for the EU to quickly sanctions Russia.

So yes, the EU's energy policy was bad for some time, because of its members' reliance on fossil fuel, and overreliance on Russia as energy provider. It's definitely improving, better late than never. It's clearly not as simple as "EU bad", the union is doing a great deal to sanction Russia and support Ukraine.

[–] einkorn@feddit.org 1 points 3 days ago

On the one hand I hope for a smoking accident. On the other it could upset a lot of people in Europe.

On second thought: Let's go with the smoking accident.