The incidents happened in March 2024 - 9 months before Hegseth became secretary of defense. At best its foreshadowing …

PS: of it wipes out MAGA and Trump at home, I consider because US citizens pee their panties over gas prizes, that’s an awesome bonus - I admit.

While you cry about gas prices, Iranian liberals get shot by revolutionary guards. My Ukrainian friends get killed, mamed, empoverished by Shaheds for 4 years. I hate MAGA, but maybe extend your liberal solidarity beyond the edge of your plate.

I don’t care if it‘s about oil for the 🇺🇸if it helps 🇺🇦.

And the best: if we get to points where we for example say: we don‘t have a fully technically and economically viable solution yet, you ignore us. Because it’s more Important to you to claim renewables to be morally right, then to make renewables happen. Else you wouldn’t ignore challenges.

You just claim stuff and completely ignore the grid, energy storage, infrastructure that‘s needed. You ignore what the engineers, businesses, start-ups that are suppossed to realize the goal you set ask to make it possible./2

Again, I worked years for think tanks actually developing the tech to make it possible for renewables to win. Both by optimizing energy consumption via AI/hardware models and one of the leading startup aggregators in energy storage. /1

Anyway, that discussion is void. Germany decided democratically against nuclear. And we‘ll buy gas - and among 🇺🇸, 🇶🇦, 🇳🇴, 🇰🇿… 🇺🇦 is next to 🇳🇴 my favorite supplier.

I argued that at crunch time 🇩🇪 neighbors didn’t understand why 🇩🇪 gave up on nuclear which could have added a substantial share to electricity co2 free.

By the way: 15%+ of electricity, 50 TWh in the grid, plus 25 TWh decentral industrial electricity come from gas. That’s not heating.

Too make the switch to renewable we will need conventional energy for the foreseeable future - in we rather talk in decades not years. 🇩🇪 decided on gas. So we’ll need to buy gas. 2/2

Your answer shows very little serious investment in actually helping to build renewables. Sorry dude, I consulted energy startups in renewables for years. I am aware of the challenges in grid, energy storage, efficiency building you need to make it happen in a market with rapid demand growth./1

The fact is that 🇩🇪’s infrastructure depends on gas as bridge-technology for renewables for the foreseeable future. And that strategy was not solidified under Reiche but Gabriel, Zypries, Altmeier, Habeck. With all neighboring countries saying: keep nuclear power. Sogas deals it is. Rather 🇺🇦 then 🇶🇦.

If we like it, and Europe should built capabilities as fast as possible is another question. Sure ot should. And nope, Rutte cannot stop European countries to do so.

He can give interviews. That’s it. Second does Europe has the weapons, technology, command structure to replace certain capabilities (nuclear, signal int, ballistic missile defense, command, logistics) - nope. So Rutte is factually correct./2

But you know the
between policy and Interviews? Rutte‘s job is to keep NATO together. He has no policy tools to stop European nations - if they wish - to build defense capabilities independent of the USA. /1

Which policies make you think that? Especially, since in a strange way, US demands and European needs converge when European become more independent in defense. So how exactly doe Rutte „try to prevent“ Europeans and Canada? Which concrete new NATO policy proposal holds Europeans back?

That’s done outside of NATO. And in in parallel. Certain US capabilities cannot be substitutes fast: signals intelligence, certain logistics, early warning, etc. It’s in Europe‘s interest to keep NATO together as much as possible until new structures are built.

True. My key point is that we should expect the EU and NATO to do a weird dance. There is the good cop (Merz, Rasmussen), bad cop (Macron, Carney, Frederiksen). There is those who play the narcissism (Rutte, Meloni) and unified counter measures (automatic counter tariffs, trade bazooka).

US companies have preferred access to rare earth. No need there. The Chinese have a 9-12% in Greenland Minerals, an Australian Company. Denmark for years blocked further licenses to any company with Chinese share holders. The whole attempt is better explained with narcissistic fixation then logic.

Fair enough. But Rutte is a rational and strategic actor - if he needs to suck up to achieve his goals, he will.

His goal is to enhance NATO. And lately damage control. There is no room for an impulsive/emotional response. He will aim to choose the most effective tool - he doesn‘t go for looks.

Now, my opinion, and this is speculation: He packaged the 1951 bilateral Danish-US Agreement plus NATO nicely. He showed that European allies incl. Denmark will increase Arctic engagement.

Then put this in a gift wrap. And told Trump, that the EU is ready to retaliate economically. Done: TACO

He has a mandate to keep NATO together. That requires that Trump immediately seizes his threats. For Trump to seize his threats he must believe he made gains.

Rutte is a highly experienced politician and diplomat. He can remove bargaining friction between NATO states - and regularly does so. 1/2

What Macron and Rutte tried to do is using compliments and ass kissing to moderate Trump. Using his narcism. It failed, because Trump perceives it as weakness. They instead should push back unified and back it up with action.

Nope. He is not a Trump supporter. A short look into the man and his policies reveals that.

He has the task to keep NATO together. And as minimal goal keep the USA onboard until Europeans and Canada filled capability gaps. Inspite Trump. However: his attempt to play Trumps narcissism failed./1

Meanwhile it is aligned with Macron and the EU on counter tariffs. And the German military planers that arrived met with the Danish Joint Arctic Command is Rear Admiral Stefan Pauly. That personal choice alone is a message, if you spent 3 seconds on NATO.

With all due to respect. You jump of some selected quotes. You don‘t even dare to which policy moves by Germany go along with it. You don‘t know what Germany does or says and with whom they align on what.
Merz mirrors Lars Løkke Rasmussen, if you know who that is./1

In either case, you don‘t throw temper tantrums. You stay calm and prepare. You retaliate when it’s time.

Merz is completely on the right path. Meanwhile they speed prep Operation Arctic Endurance (military) and the EU Anti-Coercion package. Temper tantrums kill succesful strategies.

’s not in the interest of Germany and Europe to end in a trade war with ones biggest customer. Same is true in reverse. So we gotts play tit-for-tat in a calm, cool, and collected manner. Without allowing blackmail and while standing your ground. Leave temper tantrums to the orange crybaby.

There is a 100% guarantee of no future if there is a major collapse in the age group 18-25. Economically, culturally, security. It‘s plain and simple math and demographics.

That’s why 🇺🇦 pushed the military age bracket up. The younger they loose, they replace with 45-55.

PS: Pre-Invasion Ukraine had 8.7 million men aged conscription-eligible. I‘d expect 25% avoidance rate in any country.

Ukraine cannot afford a massive dent in that age group - or Ukraine will have no future. So they take 18-24 voluntary, and goes with conscription for 25-55. So relatively old. To save future fathers. It‘s absolutely not crazy, but future oriented. 2/2