EU's $750bn energy pledge to US is ‘fantasy'
The EU and the US finalized a wide-ranging trade pact on Sunday, narrowly avoiding a transatlantic trade war. Under the agreement, most EU exports to the US will face a baseline tariff of 15%. Brussels also pledged to buy $750 billion in US energy and invest $600 billion into the US economy over three years.
According to the outlet, limited US supply, technical obstacles, and the EU's lack of control over import deals make hitting the targets extremely difficult.
The headline figure is 'completely unrealistic,' Laura Page, senior analyst at commodities firm Kpler told the outlet. The EU spent €76 billion on US energy last year – tripling that would require sidelining cheaper suppliers and diverting nearly all US oil and gas exports to Europe. 'It's just never going to happen.'
Despite European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen's claim that the plan would boost energy security and reduce reliance on Russia, the numbers remain unconvincing, the outlet noted. While pipeline flows plunged after sanctions and the Nord Stream sabotage, Russian LNG surged, making up 17.5% of EU supply last year, second only to the US at 45.3%.
In 2024, the EU imported €23 billion in oil, gas, and nuclear fuel from Russia—too little to close the gap.
EU refineries also have limited capacity to process American oil, capped around 14%, said Kpler's Homayoun Falakshahi. 'It really is a fantasy,' he said.
A senior Commission official told the outlet the deal depends on having sufficient LNG infrastructure and US shipping capacity, which is not in place.
The Commission also can't make purchases itself – it relies on private companies. 'This is not something the EU can guarantee,' one official said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
42 minutes ago
- Russia Today
Here's why the EU keeps losing to China
The China-EU summit held in Beijing late last month could have been a celebration of 50 years of diplomatic relations between two of the world's largest economic powers. Instead, it served as a sobering reminder of the EU's growing strategic confusion, and its inability to capitalize on the immense opportunities offered by cooperation with China. The summit came at a sensitive moment in global politics. What was once hailed as a mutually beneficial partnership has now become entangled in geopolitics, internal divisions within the EU, and the enduring shadow of Washington's influence. The global turbulence of recent years – the pandemic, and the war in Ukraine – has not only strained relations but also reinforced the EU's dependence on the United States. Rather than renewing a partnership that once stood as a pillar of global economic integration, the EU leaders arrived in Beijing with a familiar agenda: accusations over trade practices, warnings about 'security threats,' and renewed calls for China to 'rein in' Russia. Predictably, no breakthrough was achieved. The deterioration of China-EU relations cannot be understood without revisiting the European Commission's strategic shift in 2019. Under Ursula von der Leyen, Brussels officially categorized China as not just a partner but also a 'systemic rival' – a move that introduced suspicion into virtually every area of engagement. Since then, an ideological lens has increasingly shaped EU policy, replacing the pragmatism that once underpinned economic cooperation. The consequences have been stark. Brussels has launched measures to restrict Chinese investment, imposed high tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, and – most recently – barred Chinese firms from public tenders worth over €5 million. Further escalation came when the EU included two Chinese banks in its latest sanctions package against Russia, signaling that Europe is willing to weaponize economic tools for political purposes. These steps are justified by the EU as 'de-risking.' By pushing for reduced interdependence in strategic sectors – raw materials, high-tech supply chains, and digital infrastructure – Brussels has aligned itself with Washington's containment playbook, even as European leaders publicly insist on independence. In Beijing, von der Leyen struck a conciliatory tone, declaring the EU's openness to Chinese investment and cooperation. But such statements ring hollow when juxtaposed with her recent warnings at the G7 summit about a looming 'China shock' and accusations of Beijing 'weaponizing trade.' Similarly, the head of EU diplomacy, Kaja Kallas – also present in Beijing – has accused China of fueling the war in Ukraine and waging hybrid operations against Europe. These mixed signals undermine credibility and reinforce perceptions in Beijing that the EU lacks a coherent, autonomous China strategy. More fundamentally, Brussels' approach is internally contradictory. The EU dreams of 'strategic autonomy,' yet ties its foreign policy to transatlantic priorities. It seeks economic resilience, yet undermines its own competitiveness by disrupting supply chains and limiting market access. It aspires to global leadership, yet isolates itself from the rest of the world by clinging to zero-sum geopolitics. By contrast, China's position at the summit was clear: focus on complementarity, promote free trade, and pursue win-win cooperation in areas that matter for global stability – digital transformation, green development, and infrastructure connectivity. Beijing emphasized its willingness to deepen exchanges in artificial intelligence, clean energy, and scientific research, seeing these sectors as essential to both sides' modernization. For China, the EU remains a strategic partner, not an adversary. Beijing has long supported European integration and consistently encourages the EU to play an independent role in global affairs. From China's perspective, a strong, autonomous Europe is a counterweight to unilateralism and an anchor of multipolarity. This vision aligns with Europe's own interests – but diverges sharply from Washington's preference for a subordinate EU within the transatlantic alliance. From Beijing's perspective, the EU's current challenges – economic slowdown, energy insecurity, and geopolitical vulnerability – are not caused by China. Rather, they stem from internal divisions and policy choices that tether Europe to US strategies. China fears that Europe's drift into a hardline camp could destabilize the international order, a scenario contrary to Beijing's vision of stability and connectivity across Eurasia. The single most contentious issue remains the war in Ukraine. Brussels insists that China's ties with Moscow 'destabilize' Europe, while Beijing argues that it is maintaining an independent and neutral position aimed at facilitating a peaceful settlement. EU leaders, however, continue to press China to 'use its influence' to end Russia's military operations – effectively asking Beijing to abandon a key strategic partnership. This is neither realistic nor conducive to diplomacy. For now, this geopolitical deadlock overshadows other areas of potential cooperation. So long as the EU views the Ukraine conflict through an existential lens – and equates neutrality with complicity – China-EU relations will remain constrained, regardless of shared economic interests. Despite political frictions, economic ties remain robust. The EU is China's largest trading partner, and China ranks second for the EU. Together, they account for over one-third of global GDP and nearly 30% of global trade in goods and services. Chinese investment in Europe has surpassed $100 billion, and annual flows are roughly balanced with EU investment in China. These numbers underscore a basic truth: the China-EU relationship is too significant to be defined by ideological posturing. Global supply chains, green technology cooperation, and digital innovation cannot advance without mutual engagement. The question is whether Brussels will recognize this before further damage is done. The EU portrays its current trajectory as 'rebalancing' and 'de-risking.' In reality, these policies risk strategic isolation. By securitizing economic ties and subordinating its diplomacy to US priorities in relation to China, the EU undermines its own competitiveness and alienates partners across the globe. The result is an inward-looking bloc that struggles to influence global norms as it dreams of geopolitical power. For China, the lesson is clear: The EU is not ready for a genuine reset. Beijing will continue to engage constructively but will not expect rapid progress. In the long run, the revival of a balanced partnership may depend on a political shift within Europe – a leadership willing to replace ideological rigidity with pragmatic cooperation. The Beijing summit, rather than rekindling optimism, has confirmed the structural divergence between China and the EU. However, it also highlighted what remains at stake: two economic giants whose cooperation – or confrontation – will shape global stability for decades to come. China stands ready to pursue a future based on multilateralism, open trade, and shared development. Whether the EU can free itself from delusions and anxieties and rediscover the value of partnership with Beijing remains an open question. Until then, the EU's fixation on 'de-risking' may turn into what it fears most: self-inflicted decline.
Russia Today
42 minutes ago
- Russia Today
Funder of major US broadcasters to shut down ‘within months'
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) has announced it will cease its operations early next year after losing its budget to US President Donald Trump's cuts. Operations will be gradually wound down over the next few months, the CPB announced on Friday. Founded in 1967, it has been responsible for stewarding over 1,500 public television and radio stations, including major US broadcasters PBS and NPR. 'Despite the extraordinary efforts of millions of Americans who called, wrote, and petitioned Congress to preserve federal funding for CPB, we now face the difficult reality of closing our operations,' CPB President and CEO Patricia Harrison said in a statement. The nonprofit remains committed to 'fulfilling its fiduciary responsibilities and supporting our partners through this transition with transparency and care,' she added. The majority of staff positions at the CPB will 'conclude' with the closure of the fiscal year on September 30, 2025. Only a small 'transition team' will remain through January 2026 to 'ensure a responsible and orderly closeout of operations.' The CPB fell victim to Trump's policies in May, when the US president signed an executive order instructing it and other federal agencies 'to cease Federal funding for NPR and PBS.' Trump accused the broadcasters of 'bias' in their reporting, while the White House claimed the outlets received 'millions from taxpayers to spread radical, woke propaganda disguised as 'news'.' In June, the US House backed the Trump administration's request to withdraw some $1.1 billion in already appointed federal funds from the corporation. Next year's Senate appropriations bill does not contain any funding for the CBP. Both PBS and NPR have denied the accusations of bias. The outlets had received some 50% of their funding through the CPB and said the cuts could prompt layoffs and even their potential closure, heavily damaging the US domestic emergency warnings and alerts systems which largely rely on the networks.
Russia Today
8 hours ago
- Russia Today
Trump fires statistics official after US posts weak job numbers
US President Donald Trump dismissed Erika McEntarfer, commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), on Friday, claiming that the latest employment figures had been rigged against him. The dismissal followed weaker-than-expected July hiring numbers and significant downward revisions for May and June. Trump alleged in a Truth Social post that the employment figures issued this week had been deliberately manipulated to harm him politically, describing them as 'RIGGED' to make Republicans and himself 'look bad.' 'I have directed my Team to fire this Biden Political Appointee, IMMEDIATELY,' Trump posted later on Friday, asserting McEntarfer, would be replaced by someone 'much more competent and qualified.' A BLS spokesperson confirmed that McEntarfer 'was terminated,' and Deputy Commissioner William Wiatrowski will take over on an acting basis. July jobs report showed just 73,000 jobs added, with revisions revealing 258,000 fewer jobs overall in May and June. The unemployment rate rose slightly, to 4.2%. Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer supported Trump's decision to replace McEntarfer, emphasizing the importance of making sure 'the American People can trust' BLS data. Republican Senator Roger Marshall, who had previously questioned McEntarfer's job statistics, also praised the move. Marshall stated on X that her 'cooked-up numbers have misled the American people for too long.' Economists, however, expressed concern about the firing, with Arin Dube warning on X that it 'threatens to destroy trust in core American institutions and all government statistics.' A bipartisan group, including former BLS commissioners William Beach, appointed by Trump, and Erica Groshen, named to the post by former President Barack Obama, condemned McEntarfer's firing. The rationale 'undermines the credibility of federal economic statistics,' they said in a statement. Democratic Senate Leader Chuck Schumer also criticized Trump's decision: 'What does a bad leader do when they get bad news? Shoot the messenger.' The monthly jobs report significantly impacts financial markets, which fell about 1.5% following the announcement. Trump hasn't always been skeptical of these reports—when May data was first released in June showing 139,000 jobs added, he posted: 'GREAT JOB NUMBERS, STOCK MARKET UP BIG!' That figure was later revised down to 125,000, then sharply, to just 19,000.
