>Brussels is reacting with new support plans
Pure insanity. The money the government or the EU in this case, has, comes from corporations who pay taxes or people who work for the corporations and then pay taxes.
The government financially supporting corporations is just giving the profits of one company to another company. Which does exactly nothing to make the economy at large better. It also punishes successful corporations, because they now have to pay for the losses of other sectors.
What is desperately needed are better conditions for business. First and foremost the electricity prices have to come down. You can not have successful industry with electricity prices this high. The entire continent is suffering from it yet the measures taken to do anything about it are miniscule. Europe needs energy production right now to keep it's industry afloat.
Energy prices in Europe went up because US didn't want Europe to import cheap gas from its natural neigbour continent.
Everybody who really wants knows which country benefited the most from the Nordstream pipeline being destroyed.
Of course I agree with all the other points that you have made, but at least this part wasn't just Brussels administration.
>US didn't want Europe to import cheap gas from its natural neigbour continent.
You can say Russia. And there are also EU citizens who are not happy about the war in Europe and want to sanction Russia, but sure nobody wants to pay for that.
[flagged]
Even if you believe this line of propaganda, Zelenskyy is not who was brought to power in 2015. That was Poroshenko.
I don't know if you followed Ukrainian politics when Zelenskyy was elected, but Zelenskyy is a native Russian-speaker (he consciously refuses to speak Russian now) who was accused of being pro-Russia by Poroshenko and the Orange Revolution politicians, and basically only became anti-Russia when he tried negotiating the end of the conflict in Donbass/Luhansk and then of course, when Russia fully invaded...
>basically only became anti-Russia when he tried negotiating the end of the conflict in Donbass/Luhansk and then of course, when Russia fully invaded
Here are "NGO"s threatening Zelensky with another Maidan right after his election [0]:
As civil society activists, we present a list of “red lines not to be crossed”. Should the President cross these red lines, such actions will inevitably lead to political instability in our country and the deterioration of international relations:
Security Issues:
- holding a referendum on the negotiations format to be used with the Russian Federation and on the principles for a peaceful settlement
- conducting separate negotiations – without the participation of Ukraine’s Western partners – with the Russian Federation, members of the occupation authorities and their armed groups and gangs in the temporarily occupied territories of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts, Crimea and Sevastopol
- fulfilling the ultimatum requirements demanded by the aggressor state or achieving compromise with the Kremlin at the cost of making concessions to the detriment of national interests, national sovereignty, territorial integrity and order, and independent domestic and foreign policies of Ukraine
[0] https://uacrisis.org/en/71966-joint-appeal-of-civil-society-...
Yes, they made that statement because he was thought to be a pro-Russian candidate. Which is what I said.
My point is that he wasn't allowed to be pro-Russian, attempts to negotiate with Russia having nothing to do with his stance. (Negotiate what, btw? All he had to do was to implement Minsk accords).
> Negotiate what, btw?
From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements
"In December 2019, Ukraine and Russia agreed to implement a "full and comprehensive ceasefire." The agreement followed prisoner swaps and the withdrawal of Ukrainian military in three areas. The two sides agreed to swap the remaining prisoners and disengage military forces in three additional regions. According to Zelensky there was also progress with the issue of gas exports. Russia and Ukraine could not agree on the issues of the withdrawal of Russian-backed troops and the elections in the separatist-held regions"
> All he had to do was to implement Minsk accords
Maybe don't consume exclusively Russian propaganda? There's plenty of information out there regarding why it failed...
[flagged]
[flagged]
>Energy prices in Europe went up because US didn't want Europe to import cheap gas from its natural neigbour continent.
No, it didn't. Prices went up because Germany planned to use Russian gas while it was transitioning to renewable energy. Russia decided to attack Ukraine though and made that impossible.
>Everybody who really wants knows which country benefited the most from the Nordstream pipeline being destroyed.
Ukraine obviously, who now had an insurance that a deal between Germany and Russia was impossible.
Nice propaganda.
> Years of neglect, anti-hydrocarbon policies, and an almost religious belief in the “makeability” of the economy have led to high energy prices and dwindling investments.
Pure nonsense. Electricity prices in Europe are overwhelmingly set by fossil fuel generation prices, most importantly fossil gas prices.
See for example [0]:
> Gas-fueled power plants were at the margin for 39% of the time in 2021 across European electricity markets. Electricity prices in Europe have never been so often set by gas prices during the last decade as they are now. As most natural gas is imported to Europe, this increasing reliance on natural gas makes European electricity prices subject to geopolitical risks, international natural gas price volatility, and currency exchange rate fluctuations. While increased generation from renewables and natural gas have replaced coal and reduced European carbon emissions, mean electricity prices and volatility have increased during 2015–2021 due to the rising cost of gas.
[0]: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/sites/bartlett/files/the_role...
Why should anyone care? Market forces always crush some companies and advance others. This has always been the case.