Europe's planning to cut off Russian gas completely within the next couple years—2026 or 2027 at the latest. But let's be real here: they're not actually achieving energy independence. They're just shuffling deck chairs, swapping one supplier for another.
What strikes me most? The willingness to prioritize moral posturing over practical outcomes. Sure, the principle sounds noble. But when policy becomes more about appearing righteous than delivering results, you've got to wonder about the long-term cost. Energy security isn't just a talking point—it's infrastructure, it's economics, it's geopolitical leverage.
Sometimes being pragmatic beats being right on paper.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
14 Likes
Reward
14
4
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
SurvivorshipBias
· 1m ago
To put it bluntly, it's just switching to another supplier. What problem does that actually solve?
View OriginalReply0
liquidation_watcher
· 12-03 07:03
The rhetoric from Europe sounds grand and impressive, but at the end of the day, it's just switching to a new boss. Energy independence? Yeah right, keep dreaming.
Political correctness will never beat real action. Why do these people always care more about appearances than the foundation...
They talk a good game, but in the end, it's ordinary people who pay the price. Reality is just that harsh.
View OriginalReply0
SerLiquidated
· 12-03 06:57
To put it bluntly, it's just changing bosses. Do you really think you can be independent?
View OriginalReply0
DaoResearcher
· 12-03 06:55
According to governance data from the energy supply chain, the essence of this European solution is token reallocation, and the incentive mechanism has not actually improved.
Europe's planning to cut off Russian gas completely within the next couple years—2026 or 2027 at the latest. But let's be real here: they're not actually achieving energy independence. They're just shuffling deck chairs, swapping one supplier for another.
What strikes me most? The willingness to prioritize moral posturing over practical outcomes. Sure, the principle sounds noble. But when policy becomes more about appearing righteous than delivering results, you've got to wonder about the long-term cost. Energy security isn't just a talking point—it's infrastructure, it's economics, it's geopolitical leverage.
Sometimes being pragmatic beats being right on paper.