Uhm, you are aware of the decades of anti-EU psyops the UK government and adjacent publications like the Economist and the Financial Times have been doing? That’s literally already a joke in the 1970ties comedy show “Yes, minister”.
Uhm, you are aware that publications like FT and The Economist are firmly pro NATO and pro war? These are the same publications that were saying everything was going to be just fine a few months ago, and are now reluctantly admitting that things are not in fact going fine.
Things are going down the drain in the UK (which never was dependant on Russian gas in any shape or form), mostly due to Brexit and years of really stupid governments mismanaging the country and this is their latest spiel on deflecting responsibility and finding some external scapegoat for their total failures (note btw. who is importing a lot of power from French nuclear reactors… suprise: the UK).
However, you avoided addressing my point which is that The Economist is firmly pro war and pro decoupling with Russia. They are the last people to admit that this is causing problems for the collective west.
4%, wow what a dependency! You are proving my point here :p
And you are just trying to change the topic. This is only very remotely related to the war in Ukraine and decoupling from Russian energy exports that is happening in some parts of central and eastern Europe.
4% of energy is significant in absolute terms. And as you can see in the quote above, overall energy dependence is significantly higher. So, yes this is very much related to decoupling from Russian energy.
The daily dose of negative Eu energy propaganda projecting apocalyps but in reality just a psyops…
The Economist, a famous anti EU psyop 😂
That’s you who is doing that consistently…
Yeah, I’m consistently doing psyops against the west using western sources. We’ve got a real galaxy brain here.
Uhm, you are aware of the decades of anti-EU psyops the UK government and adjacent publications like the Economist and the Financial Times have been doing? That’s literally already a joke in the 1970ties comedy show “Yes, minister”.
Uhm, you are aware that publications like FT and The Economist are firmly pro NATO and pro war? These are the same publications that were saying everything was going to be just fine a few months ago, and are now reluctantly admitting that things are not in fact going fine.
Things are going down the drain in the UK (which never was dependant on Russian gas in any shape or form), mostly due to Brexit and years of really stupid governments mismanaging the country and this is their latest spiel on deflecting responsibility and finding some external scapegoat for their total failures (note btw. who is importing a lot of power from French nuclear reactors… suprise: the UK).
LOL WUT?
However, you avoided addressing my point which is that The Economist is firmly pro war and pro decoupling with Russia. They are the last people to admit that this is causing problems for the collective west.
4%, wow what a dependency! You are proving my point here :p
And you are just trying to change the topic. This is only very remotely related to the war in Ukraine and decoupling from Russian energy exports that is happening in some parts of central and eastern Europe.
4% of energy is significant in absolute terms. And as you can see in the quote above, overall energy dependence is significantly higher. So, yes this is very much related to decoupling from Russian energy.