Control Illusions and the Era of Multipolar Geopolitics and the War of Gas…

Apr 6

Written By Germán & Co

-21-

¨The dominance of natural gas sparks a global trade war...

¨Fossil Fuels, False Narratives, and Forgotten Lessons…

¨From Moët Chandon to Cold Hard Steel: Toasting the Global Trade Tax Hangover…

¨Tiny Lands Versus Giant Egos…

¨Global Energy News Update – April 6, 2025…

¨A dangerous ilusions…

¨The Energy Gambit: From Nuclear Dreams to Gas Leverage…

Musk broke the mirror of madness…
¨Mr. Elon Musk, casting a lifeline of sanity into the surreal theater of the unhinged arachnids of Talion law—a scene evocative of Nikolai Gogol’s Diary of a Madman—had previously supported eliminating tariffs between the United States and Great Britain. His recent remarks, however, hint at a broader ambition: extending that free trade vision across Europe. Good for Musk…

-21-

Reading the news in 2025 feels like flipping through the diary of a madman. World leaders rant and rave in surreal scenes that Nikolai Gogol himself would envy. In one entry, two cows walk into a café and order tea while diplomats war on trade tariffs. In another reality, Earth casually lands on the Moon, but quickly decides Mars is just so much more "in vogue"—provided, of course, its rocket doesn't spontaneously dissolve into a glittering shower of gold over Miami Beach, evoking vivid flashbacks of Gene Hackman’s unforgettable performance in La Cage aux Folles. Perhaps this dazzling spectacle repeats itself in a Moscow hotel room, except this time with torrents of caviar and champagne—a perfect allegory for humanity’s commitment to chasing shiny distractions. After all, reality now insists on being fantastically absurd: logic is quaint, and nonsense is the new religion.

But the cruel reality is, according to various sources, the world is going through a record number of active armed conflicts. The most recent data from the Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP) at the University of Uppsala in Sweden states that in 2023, there were 59 armed conflicts involving at least one state— the highest number recorded since 1946. This number includes wars between countries as well as civil wars and internal insurgencies, considering an "armed conflict" to be one with at least 25 combat deaths in a year.

Under our sacrosanct canons of objectivity, we have pointed to one of the great Russian writers who knew how to read the future with millimetric accuracy. Now, perhaps, it is the turn of one of the most famous American writers, Ambrose Bierce, with a lost fragment of The Devil's Dictionary.

¨The night was dark and moonless when the Editor first set foot in the rickety library, guided only by the trembling glow of a nearly spent candle. Dust floated like tiny spectres in the air. There, on a shelf eaten away by time, he found a volume with the title almost erased: The Devil's Dictionary: Supplementum Obscurum.

He opened the crisp lid. The smell of old paper filled his nostrils. As he flipped through the fragile pages, he realized that it was no ordinary edition of Bierce's work. These passages, written in tight, trembling handwriting, alluded to figures that did not exist in Bierce's time, reflecting a dissonant echo of the future. Intrigued, the Editor lit another candle and began to read:

"The name, once associated with commerce and entertainment, has emerged into the political arena feeding collective anxieties with a bellicose discourse. Under his baton, reality was split into two comfortable halves: the devotees who allowed themselves to be dazzled by his superlatives, and the skeptics who saw in his proclamations mere ghosts designed to divert debates.

He became a master of turning fear into profit, skillfully announcing threats—whether real or imagined—positioning himself as the hero of the very crises he conjured. Like a contemporary sorcerer, he transforms uncertainty into treasure, particularly during election seasons when the stakes are at their highest. It’s a brilliant display of manipulation, a cunning figure devoid of any shame... As the stock market plunged and trade wars began to unravel the global economy, just before he set out to conquer new territories for rare earth metals on behalf of his mentor, and as his unique romance with that man from the Gulag took a dramatic turn, reminiscent of a scandalous soap opera, The Devil's Cauldron simmered in a sweltering summer... Yet, undaunted and serving as a mere distraction, he boldly proclaimed, "I was born in America, and I will serve my country loyally until the last Democrat is miscounted. My lucky number is 22—and no, this isn’t a joke."

To some, he stood as the steadfast guardian of the proud Eurasian steppes; to others, he was a calculating mastermind, orchestrating geopolitical maneuvers with a chilling composure. His iron grip revealed that democracy could be swayed—or even shattered—by the sheer force of undeniable authority. In the eyes of his rivals, the art of information manipulation wielded a might akin to that of a formidable army, as the truth crumbled under the weight of doubt like a dilapidated fortress.hen the Editor reviewed the first few pages, he found a brief annotation written in a faded margin:

"These additions never appeared in the original edition of Bierce. I, the Dictionary, am nourished by the ironies and madness of each era. Whoever leafs through these pages should do so with caution: cynicism never dies; it merely adopts new masks."

Stunned, the Editor looked up. Beyond the walls of the abandoned building, the wind howled like a distant laugh—perhaps Bierce's—at that grotesque testimony of humanity's political ambition and decline. He tucked the book under his arm, determined to preserve these misplaced definitions, wondering who would ever stumble upon this enigmatic Supplementum Obscurum again.

Before leaving the library, the Editor noticed a final appendix, almost hidden at the end of the work. It was dated with imprecise features as if it were written throughout different periods:

"Disinformation: A set of lies, half-truths, and manipulated data that, when dispersed with cunning, are capable of shaping perceptions, undermining wills, and aiding despots.

Since man learned to raise his voice above a whisper, there has been the deliberate sowing of falsehoods. However, in modern history—with the multiplication of screens and networks—some will say there has never been such a hellish period of informational confusion. The speed with which rumours spread, the echo of digital cameras, and the ease with which the implausible is shared have elevated disinformation to a dark art form.

Is this, then, the darkest moment of all? Every age is considered the worst; every shaky truth seems the most fragile. But perhaps the real horror is discovering that disinformation is not a novelty but the renewed constant of an old spectre that will not disappear as long as human beings yearn for secrets and power.

And, as Bierce—or the entity that signs on his behalf—warned:

“Cynicism never dies; it transmutes as soon as it finds a new channel to propagate."

The Editor closed the book. He put his hand to his heart, overwhelmed to see that disinformation was rising, today more than ever, as the great stratagem of those who seek to subvert the truth for their benefit. Clinging to that reflection, he took his dying candle and left the library in the dead of night, wondering how long it would take for the shadows to engender new definitions that would complete that cursed dictionary.

The dominance of natural gas sparks a global trade war...

By Germán & Co.

Karlstad, Sweden – April 5, 2025

Three weeks ago, we decided it was time to escape a world tangled in so much misinformation and propaganda; it felt like we’d stumbled into one of Nicolai Gogol’s more peculiar daydreams—except instead of two cows shuffling into a Moscow café for a cup of chai, we’re dealing with two penguins waddling straight into the Bourbon & Nuuk Pub, politely asking for the finest top-shelf whiskey. Naturally, we sought guidance in the time-honoured cabanas, clasping twenty-one as though it were our talisman—promising transformation, a dash of maturity, and, with any luck, maybe even a bit of sanity.

The past few weeks have been spent poring over political essays (oh, the thrilling page-turners they are), hoping to sift through the swirling chaos of the day. You might snicker, but we were determined to find at least some logic—like trying to figure out if two plus two could ever equal five because, in some alternate dimension, it probably does. Then again, some swear by the enchantment of twenty-two, though history might consider it a perilous reef after 240 years of democracy. But hey, who knows? Perhaps those penguins in Nuuk have it all figured out. After all, they can still get their bourbon with a side of irony—no fact-checking required.

“False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil.” —Socrates

Socrates articulated these sentiments nearly 2,400 years ago, underscoring a timeless truth: a society founded on deception is at risk of undermining its very core, as dishonesty permeates its institutions akin to a contagion. From the ancient agora to contemporary media platforms, it has become evident that when truth is under threat, it destabilizes the foundations of communal existence. Nevertheless, in spite of profound philosophical admonitions, we find ourselves in an era where falsehoods proliferate at an alarming rate. The emergence of populist leaders, viral disinformation campaigns, and "fake news" enterprises backed by influential entities have distorted public discourse to such an extent that we often appear adrift, disconnected from any shared understanding of reality.

Many modern politicians weaponize lies precisely because untruth has proven shockingly effective in inflaming emotions—be they anger or hope. This process has been labeled “information warfare,” a domain in which narratives are molded, manipulated, or completely fabricated to achieve strategic ends. Populist movements, in particular, have learned that brazen or conspiratorial statements can rally a fervent base. Indeed, misinformation has become not an accidental by-product but a deliberate plank of their platform.

In a world inundated with a relentless tide of misinformation, the public stands at a pivotal crossroads: to continue the arduous journey of sifting through truth and deception or to succumb to the weariness and doubt that threaten their very survival. This struggle is no small feat. When a ceaseless barrage of half-truths and outright lies erodes the trust citizens place in their leaders, it sets the stage for political apathy, societal rifts, and ultimately, uprisings against the powers that be. Indeed, history often feels like a dizzying loop, spinning in unpredictable circles.

In this reflection, we explore how today’s turbulence is rooted in historical echoes: the manipulative strategies of authoritarian regimes, the cunning repackaging of aggression in the language of peace, and the cyclical return of great-power tensions reminiscent of the Cold War. From Castro’s letters urging the Soviet Union to act in the face of “imminent” invasion, to contemporary strongmen who cloak their own expansionist ventures in claims of victimhood, these parallels unsettle us. We will also delve into how strategic thinking—exemplified by a 2019 RAND report outlining ways to “Overextend and Unbalance Russia”—plays a complicated role in shaping state behavior and fueling perceptions of conspiracy and confrontation. By weaving these threads together, we aim to illustrate the precarious point at which the world finds itself, once again.

Late last month, we remember strongly when we stood by the window of a Stalin-era apartment on Kutuzovsky Prospekt, a short distance from Red Square. Outside, the wide avenue’s mosaic of streetlights glinted against the still waters of the Moskva River, reflecting the Soviet Gothic spires of a looming skyscraper. The hush of that evening was disturbing, as if the city itself recalled an older era of fear and rigid control. History felt closer than ever, stirring in the frosty air. Inside, a longtime family friend had prepared a banquet for those times—borscht soup simmering to a deep crimson on the stove, delicate pelmeni dumplings in a large bowl, black bread, and a bottle of vodka glinting in the lantern light. There was an undercurrent of defiance in her hospitality, as though she was commemorating a memory of survival—reminding us that past generations endured under a system that promised peace yet rolled forward tanks onto foreign soil. Indeed, that evening evoked a déjà vu: the sense that the specter of authoritarianism might was once again overshadowing the calls for peace, unsettlingly reminiscent of old propaganda posters.

In our mind’s eye, we can see the 1978 image of a propaganda poster proclaiming “peace” on one hand while decrying “militarism” on the other. It carried the same uneasy dissonance Joseph Goebbels once exploited, wrapping aggression in moralistic language. Germany’s justification for invading Poland in 1939 had also been couched in the rhetoric of self-defense, just as the Kremlin’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 was accompanied by claims of protecting threatened populations. From these vantage points, the difference between propaganda and policy can vanish in an instant.

________________________________________

Fidel Castro’s Letter to Nikita Khrushchev

One need not look far into the last century for parallels. The Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962 is remembered as a close brush with nuclear apocalypse, but we often gloss over Fidel Castro’s role in stoking the flames. In a letter to Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, Castro insisted that an attack on Cuba was “practically imminent” and that the USSR must never allow the United States to strike first. In effect, he welcomed a Soviet nuclear response if hostilities erupted—even at tremendous global risk. The rhetorical contortions—claiming self-defense as a justification for almost any action—feel all too familiar today. The formula is straightforward: paint one’s adversary as a persistent existential threat, then assert that any means of retaliation are morally justified.

Before the missile crisis, Castro had publicly praised the Soviet nuclear arsenal as an essential deterrent against what he described as U.S. imperial aggression. That stance has echoes in the justifications modern authoritarian leaders provide when rationalizing their own buildup of advanced weapons. In each case, the self-professed “victim” invests heavily in militarization, even as its neighbors or the international community express alarm. The same script played out during Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, with the Kremlin repeating that it was forced to “demilitarize” Ukraine lest it become a Western launching pad.

Elsewhere, recent images from Caracas, Venezuela, illustrate the geopolitical ironies of our age. Photographs of a U.S. envoy shaking hands with President Nicolás Maduro has caused outrage among Venezuelans who have languished under his repressive regime and severe economic crisis. From Washington’s perspective, such overtures may have been about prisoner releases or strategic resource deals—but for opposition activists who risk imprisonment or worse, it looked like a betrayal. They recall the Cold War’s contradictory optic: a superpower claiming to defend democracy while negotiating with authoritarian leaders for immediate gain.

In Europe, the Nord Stream 2 pipeline controversy underscores how drastically energy trade can be weaponized. Initially promoted as a commercial venture shipping Russian gas to Germany, Nord Stream 2 was labeled by its critics as a geopolitical Trojan horse. By 2022, sabotage had destroyed large sections of the pipeline, seen by many as a decisive severing of European dependence on Russian energy. Yet the subsequent swirl of rumors and partial leaks about possible backchannel U.S.–Russia talks to revive gas shipments through Nord Stream 2 reveals the layers of strategy and counterstrategy at play. Allegedly, American officials explored a framework that would allow them some monitoring or co-management role, effectively giving Washington a stake in European energy flows. While the details remain unverified, the story alone illustrates that in high-stakes diplomacy, official rhetoric may obscure private negotiations that run in the opposite direction.

________________________________________

RAND Repport 2019

Against this backdrop, the notion that Ukraine somehow “triggered” Russia’s 2022 invasion by threatening the Kremlin’s security has become a widely circulated claim in some circles. Sidelong accusations point to NATO expansion or alleged Western conspiracies as if they were the driving force behind the conflict. Yet a closer look suggests that the seeds of this confrontation predate 2022, extending into the interplay of global powers and the Kremlin’s own strategic assessments. Central to this discussion is the 2019 RAND Corporation report, “Overextending and Unbalancing Russia: Assessing the Impact of Cost-Imposing Options.” This study systematically examined ways to stress Russia’s vulnerabilities—economically, militarily, and geopolitically—short of direct armed conflict. The authors emphasized nonviolent measures, from expanding U.S. energy production to supporting Ukrainian forces.

¨The question naturally arises: Did the strategic framework enumerated by RAND shape the West’s response to the Ukraine war, or even precipitate Russian fears that led to the invasion?

RAND’s analysis concluded that Russia’s “greatest vulnerability” lay in its energy-dependent economy. The report suggested that by maximizing Western energy output and pressing for broader sanctions, the United States and its allies could weaken the Kremlin without a shot fired. In the realm of geopolitics, the study singled out Ukraine as a key point of leverage for the West—though it urged caution that arming Ukraine risked igniting a wider conflict. In the sphere of ideological pressure, it suggested publicizing Kremlin corruption and potentially fomenting domestic discontent, albeit with lower confidence due to Russia’s harsh suppression of dissent.

Not long after its publication, Russian state media seized on the report, framing it as an explicit “blueprint” to cripple Russia. (Some commentators even labeled it evidence of a Western conspiracy to provoke conflict in Ukraine.) Whether or not Kremlin leadership truly believed that the RAND plan was actively being implemented, the perception of a systematic campaign to unbalance Russia may have influenced the strategic calculations in Moscow. The cyclical nature of paranoia is such that if one already suspects hostile intent, any foreign policy analysis recommending pressure points can feel like confirmation of a grand design.

This dynamic resonates with history’s cyclical lessons. From the vantage point of 2025, it is tempting to see the period from 2019 onward as a slow march toward confrontation. Warnings about NATO’s expansions, intermittent clashes in eastern Ukraine since 2014, and the intensification of Western sanctions shaped the Kremlin’s siege mentality. President Vladimir Putin, echoing older Soviet narratives, emphasized that “encirclement” by hostile forces threatened Russia’s existence.

________________________________________

Ukraine is a bitter slice of cheese, caught between two superpowers

In February 2022, the Kremlin launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Putin framed it as a necessary measure to prevent Ukraine from becoming a Western-forward military base. Yet the result was precisely what the RAND study outlined as a worst-case scenario for Russia if it initiated open conflict: an outpouring of Western arms and lethal financial sanctions, effectively turning Ukraine into the proving ground for a costly Russian quagmire. Washington’s stated goal soon expanded to not just aid Ukraine but to “weaken” Russia’s ability to repeat such aggression. Within months, the ruble fluctuated wildly, Russia’s technology imports dwindled, and foreign reserves were frozen, locking the Kremlin out of vital financial channels.

There is a tragic irony to the escalation: by preemptively attacking, Russia unleashed the very Western measures it had long dreaded. The cyclical logic is reminiscent of how major powers in the past rationalized expansions or invasions, convinced that war was inevitable and better fought sooner than later.

The torrent of Western military assistance to Ukraine—from Javelin anti-tank missiles to advanced artillery and eventually heavier armor—proved a textbook case of “cost-imposing strategy.” The Ukrainian battlefield became an arena where Russia’s ground forces suffered severe materiel losses, prompting some foreign policy experts to describe it as “bleeding” the Kremlin’s military might. Not surprisingly, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin stated openly in April 2022 that a strategic goal was to ensure Russia was “weakened to the degree” it could not easily repeat such acts of aggression.

To supporters of Ukraine, this policy was morally justified: an unprovoked invasion demanded resolute resistance. Detractors cautioned, however, that such large-scale support risked nuclear brinksmanship if the Kremlin felt cornered. RAND’s original recommendation recognized this very danger, stressing that while supporting Ukraine could effectively strain Russian capabilities, it could also trigger unpredictable escalation, given Russia’s nuclear arsenal and historical claim to “privileged interests” in its near-abroad.

No aspect of modern great-power competition reveals the cost-imposing dynamic more clearly than the struggle over energy. Russia, heavily dependent on oil and gas exports, has wielded its resources as geopolitical leverage for decades. In 2022–23, however, Europe undertook a seismic shift, slashing its imports of Russian gas in response to the invasion of Ukraine. Pipelines once hailed as symbols of energy partnership—like Nord Stream 1 and 2—became conduits for tension and sabotage.

That the European Union, once reliant on Russia for over 40% of its gas, managed to halve or nearly eliminate those imports within a year attests to the power of unified sanctions and crisis momentum. The Kremlin tried to inflict its own counter-damage by cutting off supply to states it deemed “unfriendly,” aiming to fracture European resolve. Yet the result was a stunning pivot to alternative LNG suppliers, eventually leaving Russia’s gas fields with dwindling foreign customers.

As RAND anticipated, starving Russia’s energy revenue has proved a potent lever to sap Kremlin coffers. Western capitals have offset their own energy shocks through domestic subsidies and accelerated green transitions. This synergy of policy, though painfully expensive, has—so far—maintained public support in Europe. Russia, meanwhile, scrambles to reroute gas flows to Asia at steep discounts, absorbing a significant economic hit.

A crucial thread through this entire tapestry is the question of intent. From the Western perspective, arms deliveries and sanctions are responses to naked aggression in Ukraine, not a pre-planned scheme to bring about regime collapse in Moscow. Yet from the Kremlin’s viewpoint, the synergy and scale of the Western reaction seem suspiciously coherent, as though guided by a master plan. Russian state media repeatedly references the 2019 RAND study to “prove” the West had orchestrated the crisis to “fight Russia to the last Ukrainian.”

Reality, of course, is more nuanced. Think tank analyses are commonplace; governments commission studies to explore potential scenarios. The RAND report is an example of American strategic thinking meant to inform, not to direct policy. Nonetheless, once the invasion happened, it was almost as if a theoretical playbook had been dusted off and activated, fueling conspiracy theories that the confrontation was inevitable.

Within Russia, the state narrative regularly conflates reactive sanctions with deliberate Western attempts at “encirclement,” thereby feeding a siege mentality that justifies further militarization. Russia’s references to the RAND blueprint help rally domestic opinion around the notion that the country is fighting a defensive war against a hegemonic empire intent on destroying it. Past historical traumas—such as Soviet recollections of the Nazi invasion in 1941—amplify the resonance of such claims.

One of the most jarring aspects of the confrontation is that Western governments, while visibly coordinating efforts to hamper Russia’s war machine, also quietly negotiate behind the scenes for de-escalation, prisoner swaps, or energy deals. This dual-track approach is not new; Cold War politics were likewise an oscillation between deterrence and détente. Great powers have always pivoted between brandishing the stick and extending a partial carrot to avert catastrophe. Yet for societies caught in the crossfire—be they Ukrainians under bombardment, Russians grappling with economic fallout, or Venezuelans living under authoritarian rule—these macro maneuvers often feel like moral betrayal.

Hawks in Western capitals argue that regime change in Moscow is the only lasting guarantee of peace, while doves caution that pushing the Kremlin too far risks catastrophic escalation. President Joe Biden’s administration, for instance, has walked a fine line: affirming it does not seek to “destroy” Russia, while endorsing unprecedented support to ensure Ukraine’s military victory. For the Kremlin, these statements ring hollow. In the swirl of reciprocal mistrust, each side sees the other as pursuing veiled agendas.

Woven into every dimension of this crisis is the proliferation of disinformation. Modern technology amplifies false narratives faster than any propaganda apparatus of the mid-20th century could have dreamed. State-sponsored “news” agencies, bot networks, and selective leaks blur the line between fact and fiction, not only in Russia but across democracies grappling with internal polarization. Socrates’s warning about false words corrupting the soul resonates here: once the public becomes cynical and distrustful, the structure of democracy itself trembles.

The West has attempted to counter disinformation by banning channels like RT (Russia Today) and Sputnik, labeling them Kremlin propaganda arms, while supporting independent Russian-language outlets to reach audiences inside Russia. Critics call such measures censorship, highlighting the tension between open societies and the urge to protect themselves from foreign influence campaigns. This is the new normal in the battlefield of ideas: each side portrays the other as manipulative and repressive, eroding the space for civil discourse.

Returning to that 1978 memory—the propaganda poster of “peace” overshadowed by the clang of tank treads—brings us full circle to what many Russians who lived under the Soviet system have expressed: an acute, near-visceral recognition of manipulative doublespeak. Then, it was the Communist Party’s routine to proclaim itself a champion of liberation while it invaded neighboring countries under the Warsaw Pact. Now, we see a post-Soviet Russia claiming it must “liberate” or “protect” certain populations, employing a script that rebrands aggression as defense.

In the privacy of that Kutuzovsky Prospekt apartment, our small gathering sipped strong chai and vodka, remembering how families survived earlier chapters of tension and scarcity. The cyclical feeling was inescapable—a sense that the illusions of peaceful co-existence can vanish in an instant, replaced by an Orwellian rewriting of reality. For those who lived through the old era, the sorrow is in witnessing how quickly the global landscape can revert to hostility and suspicion.

If one conclusion emerges from the myriad strands of the current crisis, it is that re-establishing trust in both factual discourse and international relations is an uphill struggle. The war in Ukraine continues as of 2025, with no definitive resolution. The lines of conflict sprawl beyond the battlefield, entangling global supply chains, energy politics, and the hearts and minds of ordinary citizens. The West has embarked on an arduous mission to “contain” Russia economically, just as the Kremlin wages its own campaign of influence and intimidation. Each side feels threatened, each side claims legitimacy.

The question looms: how can the world break this cycle before it spirals further out of control? Diplomatic avenues exist, but they require stepping away from maximalist rhetoric—from illusions of humiliating or decapitating the adversary. De-escalation typically demands mutual concessions. Yet the readiness for compromise remains low, especially in the face of war crimes allegations, deep-seated mistrust, and an information environment that thrives on stoking outrage.

And what of truth? As Socrates noted, false words degrade the soul. In a period where entire nations live under official narratives that contradict observable realities, moral clarity becomes a scarce resource. This holds true across many societies, not merely within the Russian Federation or allied states. “Fake news” is a universal phenomenon, a virus that can infect democratic and authoritarian bodies alike. If we fail to reassert honesty and shared facts, the social contract that underpins governance itself may wither.

The 2019 RAND Corporation report is, in many ways, a microcosm of how think tank analyses can become enmeshed in the swirl of geopolitical conflict. It was neither secret nor necessarily prescriptive. Yet as soon as tensions flared, Russian media brandished it as proof positive of Washington’s malevolent designs, fueling the conspiracy that the West had planned this all along. Western governments, for their part, found that the measures RAND suggested—particularly on economic sanctions and support for Ukraine—were indeed practical ways to respond. The alignment of theory and practice, intentional or not, only deepened Russian suspicions.

This dynamic reveals an enduring truth about strategy: ideas circulated among policy elites can materialize in real events if circumstances permit. Before the Ukraine invasion, RAND itself warned that pushing certain levers—like providing large-scale lethal aid to Ukraine—could precipitate drastic Russian escalation. That risk crystallized in 2022. Once the invasion happened, the same options metamorphosed into core pillars of Western policy. Thus, the line between preemptive planning and reactive measure is blurred by the speed and severity of evolving conflicts.

For the global public, the RAND episode underscores the importance of reading such studies critically. On the one hand, they are standard elements of defense analysis, exploring ways to contend with an adversary short of war. On the other hand, they become potent propaganda fodder, especially when events on the ground look suspiciously like what was once merely hypothetical. Perception can drive conflict every bit as much as actual decisions.

In parallel, events in Cuba and Venezuela demonstrate that the same pattern of disinformation and double standards is not confined to Eastern Europe. As Fidel Castro once invoked nuclear deterrence, leaders like Nicolás Maduro wrap themselves in an anti-imperialist cloak. Meanwhile, the presence of U.S. emissaries seeking deals triggers accusations from local dissidents of tacit complicity in oppressive governance.

Such patterns of diplomatic engagement are nearly as old as international relations. During the Cold War, the superpowers regularly alternated between confrontation and cooperation with regimes whose ideologies they publicly denounced. The world again sees that moral consistency often yields to broader strategic considerations—be it the release of political prisoners, the reopening of energy supplies, or jockeying for influence in a multipolar order.

For populations living under repressive governments, these power plays confirm their suspicion that human rights are seldom the deciding factor in global politics. For foreign policy realists, it is simply the nature of inter-state relations that every moral stance can be bent by necessity.

We stand at an era’s pivot point. The rancor permeating global discourse is fueled not only by conventional weapons but by competing information campaigns, economic blackmail, and the reanimated ghosts of past conflicts. The voices of ordinary citizens, from Russian pacifists to Ukrainian families bombed out of their homes, from Venezuelan dissidents to European workers suddenly facing energy shocks, are muffled beneath the grand narratives of empire.

So, do we stand on the precipice of a new Cold War? Or have we already tumbled into it, with only the veneer of modern technology differentiating it from the 20th century standoff? Certain parallels are unmistakable: nuclear threats, proxy wars, mutual demonization. Indeed, the dividing lines are less strictly ideological this time—there is no monolithic communist bloc—but the structure of suspicion remains.

Yet, there is a crucial difference: the hyperconnected age amplifies every rumor and every official statement, feeding cynicism at breakneck speed. Where once propaganda was distributed via newspapers or shortwave radio, now it traverses social media platforms instantly, shaping impressions across continents. The intangible nature of such battles—in which trolls, bots, and manipulated videos might matter more than tank divisions—makes regulation or oversight a Herculean task.

The enduring question is whether these cyclical patterns—manipulation disguised as virtue, deterrence morphing into aggression—can be broken. If we sift through the immediate gloom, some glimmers of hope remain: diplomatic channels, however tenuous, still exist. Humanitarian organizations strive to mitigate suffering. Civil society in many countries demands more transparency and accountability. Even in heavily restricted states, dissent finds outlets, be they symbolic protests or online samizdat.

Nonetheless, the path to peace remains riddled with stumbling blocks. As long as leaders believe their survival depends on stoking fear of an external enemy, they will feed the furnace of paranoia. Societies battered by disinformation may retreat into apathy, or they may become more fervent in defending what they see as truths. Rebuilding trust between nations—particularly when blood has been spilled—requires acknowledging legitimate security concerns on both sides. One wonders if the world can muster the humility to do so.

Moreover, the RAND Corporation’s logic about “extending and unbalancing” an adversary has broader lessons: the measures that harm an adversary also carry costs at home, whether in the form of inflation, energy disruptions, or the risk of a spiraling arms race. RAND was explicit about that trade-off, cautioning that the benefits of pressuring Russia needed to be weighed against potential escalation to direct conflict. As we watch the conflict in Ukraine persist and the global economy weather new shocks, the real-world manifestation of those theoretical trade-offs becomes painfully evident.

Recalling the hush along the Moskva River that night, and the stories exchanged over steaming borscht, we were struck by how swiftly illusions of certainty can erode. One moment, a society might enjoy the conveniences of consumer goods and relative calm; the next, it is reeling under martial law, censorship, and forced conscription. In truth, we have never been far removed from the more chilling aspects of human nature and power struggles. To believe otherwise would be to ignore the lessons etched into 20th-century history.

In that borrowed apartment’s warmth, our quiet gathering raised glasses in an unspoken toast: that hope endures. Yet hope is not self-fulfilling. It demands vigilance. It demands an active confrontation with lies, no matter how exhausting. It demands refusing to cede the field to cynicism. Socrates spoke truly that deception corrupts the soul, but it also can be confronted by reason, solidarity, and an insistence on accountability.

We live under the weight of old tactics in new clothing. Familiar justifications—“self-defense,” “peace,” “protection”—are twisted into rhetorical shields for aggression. Historical echoes reverberate from Castro’s 1962 letters to the gray boulevards of Moscow and the pipelines snaking beneath the Baltic Sea. And behind it all, the illusions and illusions-of-illusions swirl: half-truths or entire fabrications that feed divisions within societies.

This withdrawal offered an opportunity to confront a troubling reality: in contemporary politics, truth had once again become a casualty, sacrificed on the altar of expediency and ambition. His reflections unearthed unsettling historical parallels, notably invoking the infamous propagandist Joseph Goebbels, whose cunning manipulation of language concealed brutal agendas beneath noble rhetoric.

A vivid memory had triggered his retreat: a Communist Party poster, impeccably designed and advocating peace while rejecting militarism. Initially compelling, the poster soon sparked profound indignation, as he recognized chilling echoes of Goebbels’ deceptive use of peaceful language to justify Germany’s 1939 invasion of Poland. To him, Russia’s recent invasion of Ukraine eerily mirrored this grim precedent, highlighting how propaganda and aggression remain intricately connected.

Further fueling our introspection was Poland’s distinct stance within NATO, shaped by a painful historical legacy marked by betrayal and violence from authoritarian regimes. Experiences such as the Katyn massacre and the dual betrayals by Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia had forged Poland into a vigilant guardian, alert to complacency toward Russian aggression. He found himself deeply respecting Poland’s resolve, seeing it as a necessary cautionary voice in a world prone to repeating past errors.

As his period of solitude drew to a close, his apprehension intensified, observing how contemporary disinformation, despite its digital sophistication, employed disturbingly familiar tactics. Russia’s calculated portrayal of Ukraine as fascist, its exploitation of refugee crises, and distorted narratives about NATO reinforced his conviction that propaganda remains a crucial weapon in authoritarian arsenals.

Emerging from reflection, he returned resolutely committed to vigilance against pervasive misuse of language and truth. He understood that authentic peace could only survive through unwavering dedication to truth—a stark contrast to the deceptive calm promoted by tyrannical regimes. Our retreat underscored a critical lesson: safeguarding truth is essential, for language misused is as devastating as any weapon.

________________________________________

“Axis of Evil”

Paradoxically, censorship is stronger than ever, and as Mr. Benoît Bréville describes in “International of Censors,” an alliance that cuts across traditional political divides. Rather than the familiar concept of an “Axis of Evil” or a broader coalition of autocrats, democrats, and bureaucrats who converge in their willingness to impose censorship. Bréville’s central warning is about a paradox: leaders who profess to free expression may themselves engage in the systematic control of information—demonstrating that the impulse to censor is not confined to autocratic regimes alone.

We were on the verge of concluding this text twenty-one days later, when the EU suddenly urged everyone to prepare three days’ worth of provisions—despite Sweden having sounded the alarm three months ago. We had treated those monthly attack sirens as distant echoes, until a superstitious chill crept over us.

In that instant, we happened to be writing while listening to Edgar Allan Poe’s ¨The Black Cat¨ . As the narrator began gouging out the feline’s right eye, the emergency alert rang out, making our hearts jolt with the shock of an ill omen realized. We abandoned our desks, seized a tiny Primus stove with its trembling gas tank—certain Emperor Romanov’s ghostly assault would soon knock out our electricity. After ignoring every warning before, we now fled in terror, convinced that fate and fiction had joined forces to hound us with every superstitious sign we had laughed off until that very moment.

¨That day, many millions wondered and tried to get an explanation about the close ties between President Trump and Putin...

Dagens Nyheter (DN), a leading Swedish newspaper, has reported on alleged secret financial links between Russia’s Vladimir Putin and former U.S. President Donald Trump. Notably, in mid-March 2025 (amid warming U.S.–Russia relations under a new Trump administration), DN published an analysis citing experts on Trump’s longstanding ties to Russia (Expert: Ryska groomingen av Trump framgångsrik). (DN’s coverage is paywalled (Expert: Ryska groomingen av Trump framgångsrik), but its content has been summarized by other outlets.) This reporting came as Trump was pursuing closer relations with Moscow and scaling back support for Ukraine, prompting scrutiny of his motives.

DN’s reporting suggests that Trump and Putin have been connected by decades of covert financial dealings and mutual benefit. One Russia analyst interviewed, Stefan Ingvarsson, described “over three decades of successful ‘grooming’” of Trump by Russian interests. In essence, when traditional Western financiers shunned Trump, money from the former Soviet Union “saved him, time and again” (Därför känner Trump och Putin sådan stark samhörighet). The DN analysis argues that Putin and Trump share a similar outlook – a disdain for liberal norms and a focus on power and profit – which made such an alliance of interests possible.

Specifically, DN’s sources claim that Russian oligarchs and elites have invested in or bailed out Trump’s ventures at critical times, forging hidden economic links. For example, Ingvarsson notes there are clear signs that high-ranking Russians “rescued (Trump) financially,” including during a 2008 bankruptcy scare (Har Ryssland en hållhake på Trump? | Dagens Arena). This refers to reports that when Trump was in dire straits around the 2008 financial crisis, Russian buyers and investors stepped in with cash. DN also highlighted that Western banks often refused to lend to Trump over the years, and funds from ex-Soviet sources filled that gap (Därför känner Trump och Putin sådan stark samhörighet). In other words, Russia (and ex-Soviet businessmen) became an unofficial banker for Trump’s business empire.

While DN’s article itself is behind a paywall, its claims mirror well-documented instances reported elsewhere. For instance, Donald Trump Jr. admitted in 2008 that “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of [the Trump Organization’s] assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia” (Yes, there is evidence Trump does business with Russians - POLITICO). This suggests the Trump family knew Russian capital was propping up their real estate ventures. In one prominent case, a Russian billionaire (Dmitry Rybolovlev) purchased Trump’s Palm Beach mansion in 2008 for ~$95 million, about double what Trump paid just a few years prior ('Follow the money': Senator probes Trump's $95 million Palm Beach mansion sale - ABC News) ('Follow the money': Senator probes Trump's $95 million Palm Beach mansion sale - ABC News). This flip – occurring when Trump’s casinos were near bankruptcy – prompted a U.S. Senate inquiry into whether it was an act of money laundering or a bailout ('Follow the money': Senator probes Trump's $95 million Palm Beach mansion sale - ABC News). Trump claimed it was just a business deal (attributing the huge profit to home improvements) ('Follow the money': Senator probes Trump's $95 million Palm Beach mansion sale - ABC News), but Senator Ron Wyden noted Trump was struggling financially and the timing “warrants further scrutiny” ('Follow the money': Senator probes Trump's $95 million Palm Beach mansion sale - ABC News).

Beyond single deals, an investigation by Reuters (2017) found at least 63 Russian individuals or entities invested nearly $100 million in Trump-branded properties in Florida alone (Russian elite invested nearly $100 million in Trump buildings). These buyers included wealthy figures from the second and third tier of the Russian elite (Russian elite invested nearly $100 million in Trump buildings). Reuters reported no clear evidence that these investments were directed by Putin’s inner circle, and it found no wrongdoing by Trump proven, but the pattern underscored how deeply Russian money had penetrated Trump’s real estate business (Russian elite invested nearly $100 million in Trump buildings). Such infusions of cash, often coming at times when Trump needed capital, bolster DN’s point that Trump’s business fortune has been intertwined with Russian financial interests.

DN’s portrayal of a long-running Putin–Trump economic nexus is also supported by intelligence and investigative reporting. Notably, a former KGB spy told The Guardian in 2021 that Moscow had “cultivated Trump as an asset” for 40 years – effectively grooming him via business incentives starting in the 1980s (‘The perfect target’: Russia cultivated Trump as asset for 40 years – ex-KGB spy | Donald Trump | The Guardian). Trump’s first visit to Soviet Moscow in 1987 (when he was courted for a possible hotel deal) is often cited as the beginning of this relationship (‘The perfect target’: Russia cultivated Trump as asset for 40 years – ex-KGB spy | Donald Trump | The Guardian). Over the years, Trump pursued multiple ventures in Russia (e.g. the Miss Universe 2013 pageant in Moscow, and a proposed Trump Tower Moscow during the 2016 campaign), giving Putin’s regime plenty of touchpoints for influence.

________________________________________

Broader Political Context

Allegations of hidden Putin–Trump ties have had serious political implications. They first gained wide attention during the 2016 U.S. election and Trump’s presidency, as investigators probed whether Trump’s Russia-friendly stance was owed to undisclosed financial leverage or even kompromat. Trump consistently denied any financial connection to Russia, insisting “I own nothing in Russia. I have no loans in Russia. I don’t have any deals in Russia” (Russian elite invested nearly $100 million in Trump buildings) and dismissing reports of ties as “nonsense” (Trump avfärdar påstådda Rysslandskopplingar som ”nonsens”). In 2019, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation ultimately did not establish a criminal conspiracy between Trump’s 2016 campaign and the Russian government in election meddling (Mueller finds no collusion with Russia, leaves obstruction question ...). But Mueller did document numerous links and contacts, and he pointedly noted he was not exonerating Trump on issues of obstruction or other matters. Financial entanglements largely lay outside Mueller’s narrow scope, meaning the full extent of Trump’s Russia business links was never legally adjudicated.

The idea of Putin holding undue sway over Trump lingered in U.S. political discourse – especially after episodes like the July 2018 Helsinki summit, where Trump appeared to side with Putin’s denials over U.S. intelligence findings. Critics argued that Trump’s long-standing business entanglements (or hopes of future deals) with Russia explained his unusually sympathetic approach to Putin (Expert: Ryska groomingen av Trump framgångsrik). Supporters countered that Trump was simply seeking better relations and that no explicit quid-pro-quo was ever proven. The DN piece in March 2025 came as this debate reignited: with Trump back in office, he was striking a conciliatory line toward Moscow (even as Russia was waging war in Ukraine). Understanding the history of Trump’s financial ties to Russian interests provided important context for his foreign policy – DN’s experts suggested Trump’s personal affinity and indebtedness to Russia were key drivers of his agenda (Expert: Ryska grooming av Trump framgångsrik) (Har Ryssland en hållhake på Trump? | Dagens Arena).

In summary, Dagens Nyheter’s reporting (as echoed by other sources) paints a picture of quiet, long-running economic symbiosis between Trump and wealthy Russians connected to Putin. These alleged hidden ties – from large real estate purchases to investment flows and business partnerships – may have fostered Trump’s pro-Kremlin leanings, though direct proof of Putin orchestrating financial support to Trump remains circumstantial. DN’s claims are supported by multiple investigative findings (e.g. Trump Jr.’s admissions, property records, expert testimony) (Yes, there is evidence Trump does business with Russians - POLITICO) (Russian elite invested nearly $100 million in Trump buildings), even as Trump and his circle vehemently reject the notion of being influenced or aided by Moscow.

In addition to Swedish coverage, a notable U.S. piece on Trump’s Russia ties appeared in Politico. On April 23, 2018, Politico published an article by Ben Schreckinger titled “Trump’s false claims to Comey about Moscow stay could aid Mueller.” This report scrutinized Trump’s 2013 trip to Moscow for the Miss Universe pageant – specifically a one-night stay at a Moscow hotel that later became infamous in the Steele dossier allegations. Politico’s piece came amid the Mueller investigation and revelations that then-FBI Director James Comey had written memos about Trump denying salacious rumors from that trip. Politico set out to fact-check Trump’s denial.

________________________________________

Nature and Origin of the “Hidden” Image

The Politico article made headlines for unearthing previously overlooked photographic evidence related to Trump’s Moscow visit. In essence, Politico published a photo from November 8, 2013 showing Donald Trump in Moscow alongside a Russian associate, thereby undercutting Trump’s claim that he hadn’t stayed overnight. The image – which had not been widely publicized before – came from a Facebook post by Nobu Moscow, an upscale restaurant. It shows Trump standing outside the restaurant with Emin Agalarov, one of his Russian business partners (Trump’s false claims to Comey about Moscow stay could aid Mueller - POLITICO). (Emin Agalarov, the son of oligarch Aras Agalarov, helped bring Miss Universe to Moscow and was involved in Trump’s business pursuits there.) This photo’s origin was a social media page rather than official news sources, which is why it was considered “hidden” or at least not part of the public narrative until Politico highlighted it.

Politico also cited other images and posts to reconstruct Trump’s timeline. For example, the article referenced a photograph from the late evangelist Billy Graham’s website showing Trump in North Carolina on Nov 7, 2013, at Graham’s birthday event (Trump’s false claims to Comey about Moscow stay could aid Mueller - POLITICO). This established that Trump left the U.S. that night. Then, upon arrival in Moscow on Nov 8, Trump’s activities were documented by various social media posts: the Nobu restaurant’s photo, and a tweeted photo of Trump with Miss Universe 2012 Olivia Culpo and singer Nick Jonas at a Moscow mall (the Agalarovs’ Crocus City Mall). Additionally, a Russian attendee posted Instagram photos of meeting Trump that weekend . By compiling these, Politico effectively proved Trump was indeed present in Moscow overnight on November 8–9, 2013.

________________________________________

Claims Made in the Article

The core claim Politico made was that Trump lied to James Comey about his Moscow trip, and that evidence contradicts Trump’s story. Comey had noted in his memos that Trump brought up the “golden showers thing” (an allusion to an unverified claim that Trump hired prostitutes at the Ritz-Carlton Moscow) and asserted it couldn’t be true because he “didn’t stay overnight in Russia”. Politico’s investigation found this assertion to be false. Citing flight records, hotel logs, and the newly surfaced photos, the article documented that Trump arrived in Moscow on Friday, Nov 8, and stayed through Saturday for the pageant (Trump’s false claims to Comey about Moscow stay could aid Mueller - POLITICO). The photographic evidence – such as the Nobu restaurant snapshot with Emin Agalarov – placed Trump in Moscow on the evening of November 8, directly refuting his claim that he was absent that night. Politico also noted that Trump’s own bodyguard later told Congress he stood outside Trump’s hotel room that night, after someone offered to send women to Trump’s suite (an offer the bodyguard says he declined). In short, the article’s claim is that Trump knowingly misled the FBI about the circumstances of his Moscow hotel stay.

________________________________________

Political Implications

The exposure of this “hidden photo” and the accompanying evidence had significant implications in 2018. First, it suggested that Trump may have been trying to cover up his time in Moscow, raising the question: why lie about it? Critics posited that Trump might have feared the truth would lend credence to the kompromat allegations (i.e. that Russia had compromising material on him from that night). Legally, if Trump lied to federal investigators (Comey) about a material fact, it could factor into an obstruction of justice or perjury case. In fact, Politico’s headline noted the evidence “could aid Mueller,” since proving Trump was untruthful or had a personal stake in concealing the trip could bolster the case that he was compromised (Trump’s false claims to Comey about Moscow stay could aid Mueller - POLITICO). Legal experts cited by Politico said this new timeline “might bring new legal jeopardy for the president” (Trump’s false claims to Comey about Moscow stay could aid Mueller - POLITICO).

Politically, the article added fuel to the ongoing controversy over Trump’s Russia ties. It received wide pick-up in U.S. media, reinforcing suspicions that Trump was oddly defensive and secretive about his dealings in Russia. The fact that an American president’s veracity was being undermined by contemporaneous photos on foreign social media was striking. Opponents argued it was another data point showing Trump’s pattern of false or misleading statements regarding Russia. The White House downplayed the report, and Trump himself did not directly respond to the specifics of the photo, but he continued to dismiss the overall story as a “witch hunt.”

In summary, Politico’s investigation uncovered a key photo and related posts from Trump’s 2013 Moscow trip, which served as evidence that Trump did spend the night at a Moscow hotel despite his denials. The image (sourced from a restaurant’s Facebook page) and other timeline proof not only corroborated the presence of Trump and his Russian contacts in Moscow, but also carried serious political ramifications. It suggested Trump had a personal motive to misrepresent his Russia visit (potentially to hide compromising events or simply to defuse the scandal), thereby deepening concerns about his honesty and vulnerability to Russian leverage. This “hidden photo” episode became one piece of the larger puzzle of Trump’s relationship with Russia, complementing investigative reporting like DN’s by providing concrete visual evidence of the ties and interactions that had been alleged.

Below is a revised, more detailed piece that weaves in additional information about the Trump Administration in 2025—including its key figures, immediate priorities, and policy pivots—to paint a fuller picture of how trust is playing out under his second term. The tone remains journalistic and accessible for a general audience, while offering historical context and sharper focus on current events.

________________________________________

Trust in a Divided World: The Second Trump Administration and Its Impact on Democracy and Diplomacy

In the arena of global politics, trust is the invisible contract binding democracies at home and alliances abroad. It is built painstakingly over years—through honesty, consistency, and respect—and can be shattered overnight by dishonesty or caprice. Leaders who respect their commitments earn legitimacy among citizens and credibility with allies; those who deceive or surprise partners risk watching hard-won trust unravel in an instant.

Few modern presidencies illustrate the power of trust and distrust more dramatically than that of Donald J. Trump. His second term, which began in January 2025, has once again propelled the United States into the center of global debates about whether Washington can be relied upon to fulfill its promises—or whether its word is conditional, transactional, and subject to rapid shifts. If trust truly is the currency of governance, then the Trump Administration’s policy swings and rhetorical turns mark a volatile exchange rate—one with potentially high costs for democracy and diplomacy alike.

The Return to the White House: Trump’s Second-Term Team

When Donald Trump reclaimed the presidency after winning the 2024 election, the world braced for what his second term might bring. Some of his new Cabinet picks and key advisors signaled continuity with his prior style; others suggested an attempt to project a steadier hand:

Secretary of State Marco Rubio: The Florida senator and former presidential candidate accepted the post after months of speculation. Although Rubio has been more hawkish toward Russia in the past, he has pledged to support Trump’s foreign-policy agenda “as a loyal soldier” while trying to reassure allies in Europe.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth: The former Fox News contributor and Army veteran rose to prominence in conservative circles for his strong “America First” stance and public critiques of NATO members’ defense spending. His nomination was widely seen as a nod to Trump’s emphasis on making allies “pay their fair share.”

National Security Advisor Kash Patel: After serving in lower-level roles during Trump’s first term, Patel returned in a top national security capacity, known for his skepticism of the intelligence community and for favoring bold, direct negotiations with adversaries.

Special Envoy for Ukraine, retired General Keith Kellogg: A longtime Trump loyalist, Kellogg became the face of the administration’s effort to “bring peace” to Ukraine—an initiative that would soon revolve around the contentious plan to slash global oil prices to undercut Russia’s war effort.

On the domestic front, Trump quickly reinstated or expanded policies emblematic of his first term, including more restrictive immigration measures, renewed calls for border-wall construction, and a pledge to revisit trade relations with key partners. Yet it is on the international stage—particularly regarding the Ukraine conflict—that his administration’s handling of trust has garnered the most intense scrutiny.

________________________________________

A Bold Gambit: Slashing Oil Prices to “End” the Ukraine War

In one of his earliest high-profile moves, President Trump surprised the world at the 2025 World Economic Forum in Davos by calling on Arab oil-producing nations to cut oil prices dramatically. Arguing that high oil revenue “fuels the Kremlin’s war machine,” Trump insisted that a coordinated drop in prices would starve Moscow of resources and force President Vladimir Putin to negotiate an immediate end to the war in Ukraine.

“I’m calling on OPEC to bring the price down,” Trump declared.
“The moment Russia can’t fund its war, that war ends.”

General Kellogg, newly appointed as the White House’s Ukraine envoy, echoed the reasoning: because Russia’s budget is so dependent on oil exports, hitting Putin’s wallet might prove more effective than prolonged fighting.

________________________________________

However, the gambit has drawn skepticism from both energy-sector experts and international allies

- Saudi Arabia: Officials in Riyadh quietly signaled their reluctance, pointing out that they had “no intention of flooding the market at Washington’s behest.” Past volatility during Trump’s first term left them wary of again bending to sudden U.S. demands—especially when their own economic stability hinges on higher oil prices.

- U.S. Shale Producers: American oil executives, including some who had supported Trump politically, expressed unwillingness to significantly ramp up production just to manipulate prices. They prioritize long-term profitability and warn that the administration cannot set global market levels by fiat.

- European Allies: While they share the desire to undercut Russia’s aggression, they doubt that a rapid price plunge alone will compel Putin to halt his armies. European officials also remain uneasy about U.S. unpredictability; the memory of surprise tariffs and shifting positions during Trump’s first term lingers.

In short, Trump is asking nations to trust his strategy over their own interests—a tall order given that many recall the unpredictability and unilateralism of his previous presidency.

The Trust Deficit: A Historical Backdrop

These tensions do not exist in a vacuum. Historically, alliances—particularly those involving the United States—have depended on sustained consistency:

- Post-WWII Alliances: In the aftermath of the Second World War, the United States and its allies built institutions like NATO on a foundation of trust: an attack on one is treated as an attack on all. This mutual defense agreement deterred Soviet aggression for decades.

- Erosions of Trust: The Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal in the 1970s fractured Americans’ faith in their own leadership. Internationally, episodes like the Iraq War of 2003—justified by false intelligence about weapons of mass destruction—soured allies on U.S. reliability.

- Trump’s First Term (2017–2021): Allies like Canada, Germany, and France experienced new strains: abrupt tariff impositions, questioning of NATO commitments, and withdrawal from international accords (Paris Climate Accord, Iran nuclear deal). Rebuilding faith after such moves is no small task.

Returning to office in 2025, Trump inherits what some analysts call a “trust deficit” both domestically and abroad. A recent global survey (Edelman’s Trust Barometer) reveals that 63% of people fear their government leaders deliberately mislead them—a statistic that resonates with those wary of the “post-truth” political environment that accelerated in Trump’s first term.

________________________________________

Unpredictability vs. Credibility: The Hallmarks of Trump’s Style

One of Trump’s self-professed virtues is “keeping everyone guessing.” In his first term, he often used surprise announcements—frequently via social media—to achieve immediate political impact. This led to:

1. Abrupt Policy Shifts: Withdrawing troops from Syria overnight, threatening to pull out of NATO if allies didn’t increase defense spending, imposing tariffs on allies without prior consultation.

2. Transactional Deal-Making: Reducing diplomacy to quid pro quos, such as conditioning U.S. support for Ukraine on political favors—an episode that led to his first impeachment in 2019.

3. Personal Rapport with Adversaries:** Trump prided himself on high-profile summits (e.g., with North Korea’s Kim Jong-un) that he said showcased his ability to handle adversaries one-on-one, often sidelining traditional diplomatic channels.

These tactics won favor among parts of the American electorate who appreciated his direct, brash style. But they also left U.S. allies uneasy. “He’s unpredictable” was a frequent refrain in European capitals—sometimes said with admiration for his willingness to break the mold, but more often with concern that the U.S. could not be counted on to maintain longstanding commitments.

________________________________________

Allies’ Reactions in 2025: Cautious, Polite, and Wary

With Trump back in the White House, the reaction across NATO and key U.S. partners in Asia and the Middle East has been a measured wariness:

- NATO Partners: Leaders in Germany, France, and Canada remain polite in public statements, congratulating Trump on his return to office. Yet behind closed doors, officials admit a pervasive sense of “brace for turbulence.” They recall how abruptly Trump once threatened to pull the U.S. out of NATO summits if members didn’t meet spending targets. As one European diplomat put it, “We’ve been burned before; we must protect our own interests.”

- Ukraine: President Volodymyr Zelensky, grateful for any pressure on Russia, has welcomed additional U.S. arms shipments. But he is adamant that “no grand bargain” be made over Ukraine’s head. Memories of Trump’s 2019 freeze on military aid—for political leverage—feed Kyiv’s anxiety about being a pawn in a larger Trump-Putin deal.

- Saudi Arabia and OPEC States: Already signaling reluctance to comply with a forced price drop, they note the lasting memory of Trump’s fluctuating oil policy in his first term, where he alternately praised and blasted OPEC for price manipulation. For them, upending their budgetary and strategic interests on Trump’s word alone is not a winning prospect.

In short, the second Trump administration is trying to rebuild or reinforce relationships with partners who largely remember the shocks of the first term. That’s a difficult balancing act: offers of arms deals and trade incentives sometimes clash with a history of “America First” rhetoric, tariffs, and unilateral moves that sowed distrust.

________________________________________

Russia’s Response: A Study in Opportunism

Perhaps the most telling reaction came from Moscow itself. Putin, while officially dismissing the notion that crashing oil prices could force him to end the war, publicly praised his “pragmatic and trusting” relationship with Trump—a statement that raised eyebrows across NATO capitals. When an adversary like Putin expresses more faith in the U.S. president than do longstanding allies, it underscores the rift that mistrust can create.

Still, Russia has proven it can adapt to economic pressure by selling discounted oil to willing buyers such as China and India. If OPEC complied with Trump, Moscow might look for additional illicit markets or ramp up alternative revenues. European analysts question whether a short-term drop in oil prices alone will corner the Kremlin, especially given Putin’s proven willingness to absorb economic pain for strategic aims.

________________________________________

The Broader Context: Trust in a “Post-Truth” Era

Underlying these developments is the erosion of trust in democratic institutions worldwide—often linked to an age of “alternative facts” and viral misinformation. When citizens believe their leaders routinely lie, or that objective truth is elusive, trust decays at every level:

- Domestic Distrust:** American politics has been marked by high polarization, with many voters convinced elections are rigged and media outlets are biased. This fosters a public sentiment that “everyone is lying,” which in turn weakens the moral authority of any administration.

-International Skepticism:** Allies and adversaries question whether the U.S. will maintain consistent policies or whether decisions might hinge on presidential tweets or personal deals. As a result, they hedge their bets—seeking new partnerships, diversifying trade, or building their own security structures.

- The Spiral Effect:** The more leaders bend facts or break promises, the more the public (and foreign governments) come to expect duplicity. Distrust then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, further fueling instability.

________________________________________

Repairing the Breach: Can Trust Be Restored?

For President Trump, restoring trust—especially with longtime Western allies—requires more than bold statements. It demands follow-through on commitments, transparent policymaking, and an end to the ad-hoc surprise announcements that roiled alliances in his first term.

- Consistency Over Time: As scholars note, trust is built through predictable patterns of behavior. If the second Trump administration demonstrates steadiness (for instance, holding firm on aiding Ukraine without sudden reversals), it could gradually rebuild allied confidence.

- Consultative Decision-Making: If officials like Secretary of State Rubio and Secretary of Defense Hegseth engage NATO partners in genuine dialogue—rather than delivering ultimatums—the alliance might solidify. Negotiations over trade disputes, for example, could adopt a cooperative tone if approached in good faith.

- Honoring Democratic Norms: On the domestic front, curbing partisan attacks on election integrity or independent media could help mend the fractures that allowed distrust to flourish. A president who respects institutional checks and balances is more likely to be trusted abroad.

Yet old habits die hard. Trump’s willingness to break norms is what endeared him to his base. His second term has already shown flashes of that same unpredictability: talk of imposing tariffs on all European imports, casually suggesting that allied nations “owe” the U.S. for defense, or flirting with personal rapport with Putin. Each unorthodox gesture raises the anxiety level among allies and can quickly undercut even the best diplomatic outreach.

________________________________________

Conclusion: The High Price of Distrust

Trust is indeed the lifeblood of both democracy and foreign policy. When a population trusts its leaders, governance becomes more stable, and the leader’s legitimacy is secured. When allies trust each other, grand coalitions like NATO and deep economic partnerships flourish, standing together against common threats.

But as the 2025 return of President Trump has shown, trust once shaken is exceedingly hard to restore. OPEC states resist calls for drastic production moves because of past whiplash. European allies tread cautiously after years of mixed signals. Ukraine, while grateful for arms, worries about being sold out in a “quick deal.” Russia seizes the narrative to claim a new form of “pragmatic” understanding with Trump. And the American public, too, is divided—some cheering Trump’s boldness, others fearing a renewed era of erratic foreign policy.

The stakes could not be higher. With the Ukraine war still raging and global tensions rising, the entire post-World War II framework of alliances stands at an inflection point. If the world cannot trust the United States to keep its word, a realignment of global power could accelerate—one in which adversarial regimes exploit distrust in Western leadership. Conversely, if the Trump administration—and by extension, America—manages to sustain a consistent approach, keep promises, and collaborate effectively, it might still salvage and even strengthen the alliance system so carefully built over decades.

In the end, the lesson remains the same: trust is fragile. It can be lost with a single falsehood or betrayal, and regaining it demands sustained honesty and respect. Whether President Trump can defy his own reputation for unpredictability and transactionalism—and whether allies can put aside lingering doubts—will determine not just the outcome of the Ukraine war, but the broader shape of our international order in the years to come.

For now, the world watches with cautious eyes, awaiting proof that America’s vows hold firm—and hoping that the fragile currency of trust can be replenished before the cost of its absence becomes too great.

________________________________________

Sources:

- Edelman Trust Barometer (2024–2025)

- World Economic Forum, Davos Summit Transcripts (January 2025)

- Official OPEC Statements (February–March 2025)

- Public Statements by President Trump, Secretary of State Rubio, and National Security Advisor Patel (January–April 2025)

- NATO Communiqués on Ukraine (2024–2025)

- Historical Data on U.S. Public Trust in Government (Pew Research, 1970–2023)

- Various media coverage from Kyiv Independent, Le Monde, The Guardian, Eurasia Review, and others

**Note:** Some events described are hypothetical projections based on real sources and ongoing developments.

From Moët Chandon to Cold Hard Steel: Toasting the Global Trade Tax Hangover…

In the economic arena, the United States and China resemble a pair of circus clowns hurling cream pies at each other—a comedic spectacle tinged with real-world consequences. Tariff upon tariff, export ban upon export ban, each side goads the other into another round of retaliation. Rumours abound that negotiators pass messages in fortune cookies or through X memes. Underneath the slapstick, global supply chains tie themselves in knots, and ordinary people see rising prices for household goods.

But China is not alone in this saga. The returning U.S. trade representative—making an encore appearance in 2025—has expanded the tariff mania to America’s traditional allies. Steel, aluminium, and even French wine are in the crosshairs. The European Union, outraged but also internally divided, issues its own retaliatory threats on everything from Harley-Davidsons to peanut butter, giving the impression of a Punch and Judy puppet show. Cracks in the EU’s unity are exposed as 27 member states squabble over exactly how hard to hit back. Even Canada, which one would imagine to be the world’s most polite neighbour, finds itself in a mini-trade spat with Washington over renewed U.S. tariffs. Their newly elected prime minister—a mild-mannered former central banker—now faces the bizarre challenge of standing up to his country’s supposed best friend.

Tiny Lands Versus Giant Egos

China Relations and the Formosa (Taiwan) Question

Small territories frequently become focal points of significant global power struggles, and Formosa, now widely known as Taiwan, vividly exemplifies this geopolitical reality. The complex and often tense relationship involving Taiwan, China, and the United States highlights historical conflicts, diplomatic intricacies, and contemporary security concerns.

Formosa’s geopolitical significance emerged strongly after the Chinese Civil War (1945-1949), which resulted in the Chinese Communist Party, led by Mao Zedong, establishing the People’s Republic of China (PRC) on the mainland in 1949. The defeated Nationalists, led by Chiang Kai-shek, retreated to the island of Formosa, establishing what became the Republic of China (ROC). Initially viewed as temporary, Chiang’s government on Formosa evolved into a stable administration, transforming the island into a distinct political entity.

Beijing has consistently viewed Taiwan as a renegade province that must eventually reunify with the mainland, by force if necessary. Taiwan, however, sees itself as a sovereign, vibrant democracy, successfully maintaining a distinct identity separate from China’s political system. Its democratic evolution, especially after the lifting of martial law in 1987, has strengthened its internal governance and international credibility.

U.S. involvement in Taiwan dates back to the early Cold War when the United States recognized the ROC government in Taiwan as the legitimate government of China. This stance changed significantly with the 1972 rapprochement initiated by President Richard Nixon's visit to China, followed by the United States formally switching diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing in 1979. Yet, despite this shift, the U.S. maintained strong unofficial relations with Taiwan under the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) of 1979, which mandates that the U.S. provides Taiwan with defensive arms and maintains the capacity to resist any forceful attempts at reunification by the PRC.

Recent years have seen escalating tensions around Taiwan, with China significantly increasing its military presence and activities near Taiwanese airspace and waters. Chinese military aircraft regularly enter Taiwan’s Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ), actions Taipei criticizes as deliberate provocations aimed at testing Taiwanese defenses and political resolve. Taiwan’s leadership frequently accuses Beijing of destabilizing regional peace and security.

These provocations create a highly charged atmosphere, reminiscent of geopolitical brinkmanship. The international community watches anxiously, understanding clearly that miscalculations or misunderstandings could spiral rapidly into conflict. Particularly concerning is China’s naval expansion and increasing assertiveness in the Taiwan Strait. Recent developments indicate China's navy moving closer to Taiwan’s territorial waters, a strategic move intended both as intimidation and preparation for potential future military operations.

The United States remains a critical player in this scenario. Under President Biden’s administration, the U.S. has reiterated commitments to Taiwan’s security, evidenced by increased arms sales, military cooperation, and explicit diplomatic support. Simultaneously, the U.S. is cautious not to push China into direct military confrontation, emphasizing deterrence and strategic ambiguity rather than overt aggression.

Strategically, Taiwan represents more than a democratic partner; its geographical position is crucial for maintaining U.S. military influence in the Asia-Pacific region. Its proximity to key maritime routes through which a substantial proportion of global trade passes further underscores Taiwan’s importance in international geopolitics. China, aware of these strategic considerations, continuously pressures Taiwan diplomatically and militarily, hoping to erode Taiwanese resistance over time.

The current situation raises global concerns regarding potential conflict. Observers from international think tanks warn that Taiwan could become the flashpoint for a U.S.-China military clash, with profound global economic and security implications. Thus, diplomatic engagement, crisis management, and strategic clarity have become essential elements of international policy discussions.

In summary, Formosa’s historical and geopolitical context remains central to current U.S.-China relations. Taiwan stands as a test case of international diplomatic resilience and strategic ambiguity, delicately balancing democratic self-governance, military preparedness, and complex diplomatic relationships with global powers. The challenge for Taiwan, the U.S., and China lies in navigating this tense and dynamic situation, seeking stability without sacrificing sovereignty, security, or strategic advantage.

Grenada 1983 - Greenland???

Meanwhile, Denmark should remember the echoes of history as it navigates Greenland’s increasing geopolitical significance. In 1983, the tiny Caribbean nation of Grenada, home to approximately 91,000 residents, became the unexpected stage of geopolitical turmoil when the United States launched Operation Urgent Fury. This intervention, driven by Cold War anxieties over Soviet and Cuban influence, highlights the vulnerability of small nations with limited populations becoming focal points in global power struggles.

Today, Greenland, an autonomous Danish territory with roughly 56,000 inhabitants, presents a similarly sensitive geopolitical scenario. Greenland’s sparse population belies its strategic importance: located between North America and Europe, it controls critical Arctic routes and holds substantial untapped natural resources, including rare earth minerals essential for modern technology. As climate change opens new Arctic shipping lanes, global powers like the United States, Russia, and China are increasingly drawn to Greenland’s strategic position.

In the 1980s, Grenada’s location near vital Caribbean shipping routes, combined with the Marxist-oriented government of Maurice Bishop, attracted substantial attention from global powers. Cuban advisors and Soviet support for infrastructure projects, such as an airfield capable of accommodating large military aircraft, heightened American fears of expanding communist influence in the Caribbean. The U.S. swiftly intervened militarily following internal instability and Bishop's assassination, asserting its geopolitical interests under the guise of restoring order.

Similarly, Greenland today finds itself the focus of strategic interests from global powers. Historically, Greenland has been central to North Atlantic security, notably hosting the U.S. Thule Air Base (now Pituffik Space Base), a critical early-warning facility within NATO’s defense strategy. The United States maintains significant influence through a longstanding defense treaty with Denmark, reflecting Greenland's pivotal role in monitoring Russian activities in the Arctic.

China, on the other hand, views Greenland as a vital node in its ambitious "Polar Silk Road" initiative, aiming to develop infrastructure and gain access to Arctic resources. Danish authorities, wary of Beijing’s strategic intent, have actively prevented Chinese investments in Greenlandic infrastructure, including airports and military-sensitive facilities. This cautious approach is influenced by experiences like Grenada’s, where infrastructure investments by foreign powers quickly evolved into geopolitical flashpoints.

Denmark’s approach to Greenland must acknowledge the lessons from Grenada’s past. Small populations and territories can quickly escalate into significant geopolitical contests if perceived threats are not managed effectively. The Grenada intervention shows that external influence, especially when combined with internal instability, can lead to rapid and dramatic shifts in sovereignty and governance.

For Denmark, ensuring Greenland’s stability involves careful management of international engagements and maintaining a transparent dialogue with Greenlandic authorities. Promoting Greenland’s economic independence through sustainable investments can also mitigate the risk of external manipulation. Additionally, continued diplomatic cooperation with the U.S. and other NATO allies remains crucial to balancing international interests and safeguarding Greenland’s future.

Grenada’s experience underscores how quickly geopolitical interests can override the autonomy of smaller nations. Denmark, informed by this historical context, must remain vigilant, proactive, and strategic to ensure Greenland’s trajectory remains one of stability, prosperity, and self-determination rather than vulnerability to geopolitical competition.

Historical Background: U.S.–Panama Canal Relations…

The United States' involvement with the Panama Canal dates back over a century and shapes the strategic dynamics of the region today. In 1903, the U.S. supported Panama's independence from Colombia through what historians describe as classic "gunboat diplomacy." This intervention paved the way for the Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty, granting the U.S. a perpetual lease over the Panama Canal Zone, a territory effectively under American sovereignty, for canal construction and operation. The canal opened in 1914, quickly becoming a cornerstone of U.S. naval and commercial strength by significantly reducing maritime travel between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

However, U.S. control was controversial and viewed negatively by many Panamanians, fostering resentment and nationalism. Tensions periodically escalated, notably in 1964, when riots erupted over Panamanian demands to fly their national flag in the Canal Zone, resulting in deaths and a diplomatic crisis. Panamanians increasingly viewed American control as a violation of national sovereignty.

By the 1970s, geopolitical dynamics had shifted considerably. President Jimmy Carter, recognizing the growing tensions and seeking improved relations with Latin America, negotiated the Torrijos–Carter Treaties in 1977 alongside Panamanian leader General Omar Torrijos. These agreements set a clear timeline for transferring canal control to Panama by December 31, 1999, and established the canal's permanent neutrality. Crucially, Panama agreed the canal would remain open equally to all nations, with the U.S. retaining the right to intervene militarily only to protect this neutrality—without reclaiming sovereignty.

Relinquishing control was politically contentious in the United States. Politicians like Ronald Reagan strongly opposed the treaties, arguing the canal was America's rightful property. However, Carter’s administration believed that returning the canal was vital for dispelling the lingering perception of American imperialism and fostering genuine partnership and goodwill in Latin America. Moreover, from a practical standpoint, by the 1970s, the canal’s military significance had declined since larger modern ships could no longer pass through its locks.

Thus, the handover on December 31, 1999, marked a historic and peaceful transfer of strategic territory from a global power to a smaller nation. Panama established the Panama Canal Authority (ACP) to manage the waterway independently, which it has successfully operated since, even undertaking a significant expansion project completed in 2016 to accommodate larger ships.

Yet, the canal's strategic importance has endured, evolving into new geopolitical concerns in recent decades, particularly with China's increasing economic involvement in Panama. This shift has raised alarms in Washington, prompting some American political figures to question the wisdom of the treaties. Former President Donald Trump, notably, criticized the treaty, incorrectly asserting that "China secretly runs the canal" and controversially suggesting the U.S. should consider reclaiming control militarily. These statements drew strong rebukes from Panama, whose president publicly rejected Trump’s assertions, reaffirming the nation's sovereignty.

American policymakers and experts widely dismiss notions of forcibly retaking the canal, recognizing such actions would violate international law, damage U.S. credibility, and undermine regional stability. Instead, contemporary U.S. strategy focuses on diplomatic engagement, economic partnership, and support for Panama's continued stewardship of the canal. Given that approximately 40% of U.S. container traffic traverses the canal, its smooth operation remains vital to American economic interests.

Recently, U.S. diplomatic approaches have highlighted constructive engagement, particularly emphasizing collaboration to address significant challenges such as infrastructure modernization, climate resilience, and water management. Notably, high-level dialogues have aimed at deepening bilateral cooperation, counterbalancing China's influence through positive economic and diplomatic initiatives rather than confrontation.

The United States appears keenly aware of leveraging situations such as the recent drought-induced operational crises at the canal to renew diplomatic ties and reassert its role as a reliable partner. By offering technical expertise and investments, the U.S. seeks to support Panama’s sustainable management of the canal, maintaining its status as a crucial global trade route while ensuring regional stability.

Thus, more than two decades after relinquishing formal control, U.S. strategic intentions towards the Panama Canal region have shifted towards fostering a mutually beneficial partnership. The canal, historically symbolic of imperial reach, now embodies modern strategic diplomacy—an approach emphasizing cooperation, economic investment, and regional stability in a rapidly evolving geopolitical landscape.

Global Energy News Update – April 6, 2025

Major Headlines and Summaries

U.S. Climate and Energy Policy: The new U.S. administration is prioritizing fossil fuels and rolling back prior climate initiatives. Energy Secretary Chris Wright’s Department of Energy has launched a review that could cut funding for Biden-era clean energy projects – including four regional hydrogen hubs – despite laws mandating their support (US senators urge energy secretary to follow law on clean energy grants, loans | Reuters). This aligns with President Trump’s “energy dominance” agenda, which since January has slashed funding for clean energy and boosted oil, gas, and coal production (US senators urge energy secretary to follow law on clean energy grants, loans | Reuters). The DOE also moved to rescind a Biden-era policy that limited LNG export permits to seven years, making it easier for new liquefied natural gas terminals to get extensions and move forward (US to axe Biden-era 7-year deadline on exports from new LNG projects | Reuters) (US to axe Biden-era 7-year deadline on exports from new LNG projects | Reuters). Democratic lawmakers have pushed back, warning the administration must “faithfully execute” climate laws – in other words, it cannot substitute its own preferences for spending mandated by Congress (US senators urge energy secretary to follow law on clean energy grants, loans | Reuters).
Renewable Energy and Nuclear Power: Offshore wind development in the U.S. has stalled amid surging costs and political opposition. In his first days back in office, President Trump suspended new offshore wind leases, leading analysts to predict “no new projects expected to be completed” beyond those already under construction (US offshore wind farm projects slow as Trump opposition adds to hurdles | Reuters) (US offshore wind farm projects slow as Trump opposition adds to hurdles | Reuters). Several offshore wind companies had already canceled projects in 2023–24 due to high costs, and experts now warn the nascent U.S. industry is “precariously positioned” under the current policy environment (US offshore wind farm projects slow as Trump opposition adds to hurdles | Reuters). Meanwhile, nuclear energy is seeing renewed support abroad. Italy – which banned nuclear power in 1987 – approved a law to return to nuclear generation and has formed a joint venture of major firms (Leonardo, Enel, Ansaldo) to study the best reactor technologies (Italy's Leonardo, Enel and Ansaldo reach deal on nuclear joint venture | Reuters). In Sweden, the government proposed offering state-backed loans and price guarantees to help finance at least four new nuclear reactors, aiming to roughly double electricity output by 2045 as part of its climate strategy (Sweden proposes state loans for new nuclear reactors | Reuters) (Sweden proposes state loans for new nuclear reactors | Reuters). These moves reflect a broader trend of countries looking to nuclear power to meet climate goals and energy demand, even as renewables growth continues globally (a record ~700 GW of new renewable capacity was added in 2024) (Renewables and natural gas surge ahead of oil and coal | Reuters).
Fossil Fuel Markets and Investment: Oil markets whipsawed as major producers pivoted on supply. The OPEC+ alliance, led by Saudi Arabia, made a surprise decision to increase oil output by 411,000 barrels per day starting in May – about three times the previously planned rise (Oil dives 7% to lowest in over 3 years on China's tariffs | Reuters) (Seeking to punish cheaters, Saudi Arabia pushes OPEC+ to open oil taps | Reuters). Saudi Arabia pushed this “open the taps” move largely to punish OPEC+ members that were exceeding their production quotas (like Kazakhstan and Iraq) (Seeking to punish cheaters, Saudi Arabia pushes OPEC+ to open oil taps | Reuters) (Seeking to punish cheaters, Saudi Arabia pushes OPEC+ to open oil taps | Reuters), a sharp reversal from its prior stance of cutting output to prop up prices. The result was immediate: oil plunged to ~$65, the lowest price since 2021, as traders reacted to the prospect of higher supply on top of escalating recession fears (Oil dives 7% to lowest in over 3 years on China's tariffs | Reuters) (Oil dives 7% to lowest in over 3 years on China's tariffs | Reuters). In the corporate arena, energy companies are recalibrating their strategies. For example, Shell announced it will scrap its large solar and onshore wind projects in Brazil, citing an “unfavorable environment” of oversupply, slow demand growth and regulatory uncertainty (Shell scraps solar, onshore wind power projects in Brazil | Reuters). This move – in line with Shell’s new global strategy to pull back on low-return renewables (Shell scraps solar, onshore wind power projects in Brazil | Reuters) – underscores how oil & gas majors are refocusing on core fossil fuel businesses and “exiting activities that do not fit into [their] strategy or do not generate sufficient returns,” as Shell put it (Shell scraps solar, onshore wind power projects in Brazil | Reuters). At the same time, some state-owned firms are doubling down on fossil investments (e.g. Argentina’s YPF is channeling over $3 billion into shale oil expansion in 2025), highlighting that fossil fuel investment remains robust in certain regions despite global climate goals.
Electric Vehicle Market Dynamics: The EV sector is evolving unevenly across markets. In China, EV leader BYD enjoyed another blockbuster quarter – its sales jumped roughly 58% in Q1 2025 year-on-year, far outpacing rivals – while Tesla’s growth has slowed, causing Tesla to lose global market share (BYD Enjoys Yet Another Blockbuster Quarter as Tesla Flounders). BYD’s chairman announced plans to double BYD’s overseas sales to 800,000 units in 2025 by assembling cars locally in Europe and other regions to overcome import tariffs (BYD aims to double overseas sales to 800,000 in 2025, chairman tells analysts | Reuters) (BYD aims to double overseas sales to 800,000 in 2025, chairman tells analysts | Reuters). This comes as the European Union considers tariffs on Chinese EVs and batteries, and Chinese automakers pivot to strategies like exporting hybrid vehicles to sidestep trade barriers. In the United States, electric vehicle demand remains on an upward trajectory but faces new headwinds. Auto executives warn that Trump’s rollback of EV incentives and charging-station funding could slow the buildout of charging infrastructure (US Funding Cuts to Slow EV Chargers' Spread, CEO Says), potentially tempering the rapid growth seen under Biden’s policies. Still, analysts note that U.S. EV sales hit record highs in 2024, and global EV sales overall rose about 24% last year to 17.2 million vehicles (Tesla Has a Problem — and It's Not Just Elon Musk's Politics) – a sign that consumer uptake of clean cars is continuing. Automakers worldwide are in an EV price war, cutting prices to spur demand (Tesla has repeatedly slashed U.S. prices, and BYD introduced discounts on its cheapest models in China). The coming months will reveal whether legacy carmakers and EV startups can maintain profit margins and production momentum amid fierce competition, or if the market’s growth will moderate due to economic pressures.
Geopolitical Energy Developments: Global geopolitics are increasingly intertwined with energy. The U.S.–China relationship has deteriorated into a tit-for-tat trade fight that directly impacts energy markets – exemplified this week by China imposing a new 34% tariff on all U.S. goods from April 10 in retaliation for U.S. tariffs (Oil dives 7% to lowest in over 3 years on China's tariffs | Reuters). This escalation is feeding recession fears and threatens to undermine climate cooperation between the world’s two largest emitters. In India, a mismatch between clean energy ambitions and on-the-ground hurdles is shaping policy: India aims for 500 GW of non-fossil power by 2030, but its renewable sector is facing obstacles (weak power purchase demand, land acquisition issues, project delays) (India's Tata Power eyes first coal capacity expansion in six years | Reuters). Partly as a result, Tata Power just moved toward its first coal power expansion in six years, seeking to add 1.6 GW at an existing plant even as renewables projects stall (India's Tata Power eyes first coal capacity expansion in six years | Reuters) (India's Tata Power eyes first coal capacity expansion in six years | Reuters). This highlights India’s challenge in balancing booming electricity demand with its climate commitments. In Brazil, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is likewise walking a tightrope between economic development and climate leadership. Lula’s government is pressuring regulators to approve oil drilling near the mouth of the Amazon River – he complained that Brazil’s environmental agency “seems to be against the government” for delaying Petrobras’ project (Brazil's Lula to meet with agency on Petrobras' bid to drill near mouth of Amazon river | Reuters) (Brazil's Lula to meet with agency on Petrobras' bid to drill near mouth of Amazon river | Reuters). Regulators have so far recommended against the Amazon offshore drilling on environmental grounds (Brazil's Ibama staff recommend against Petrobras drilling in Amazon region | Reuters), and the final decision is pending. This comes as Brazil positions itself to host the COP30 U.N. climate summit in 2025, putting a spotlight on Lula’s climate credentials. In the Middle East, OPEC’s internal politics (with Saudi Arabia asserting itself against quota violators) and its relations with big consumers like the U.S. are in flux, as seen by the recent supply hike partly aimed at appeasing Washington’s calls for lower fuel prices (Seeking to punish cheaters, Saudi Arabia pushes OPEC+ to open oil taps | Reuters) (Seeking to punish cheaters, Saudi Arabia pushes OPEC+ to open oil taps | Reuters). And in Europe, leaders are being urged to hold the line on climate action despite distractions from war and trade disputes – a group of former officials led by Mary Robinson warned that “the crisis of a federal withdrawal in the United States [on climate] is an opportunity for the European Union… to seize leadership” in clean technology and policy (Former world leaders urge EU to hold the line on climate | Reuters). Overall, geopolitical forces – from trade wars to strategic resource competitions – are increasingly shaping the direction of energy investments and climate efforts across the globe.
Economic and Market Trends: Energy prices and financial markets gyrated on economic jitters this week. Crude oil suffered its worst week in over a year: Brent benchmark fell ~11% for the week to ~$65.58/bbl, the lowest since August 2021, and U.S. WTI plunged 10.6% to ~$62/bbl (Oil dives 7% to lowest in over 3 years on China's tariffs | Reuters). The selloff was driven by mounting fears that the U.S.–China tariff war will dent global growth – JPMorgan now pegs the odds of a 2025 global recession at 60% (Oil dives 7% to lowest in over 3 years on China's tariffs | Reuters) – combined with OPEC+’s supply increase decision. Other commodities from natural gas to soybeans also dived in tandem (Oil dives 7% to lowest in over 3 years on China's tariffs | Reuters). Energy equities tumbled alongside oil: U.S. oilfield service stocks like Halliburton and Baker Hughes sank 10–11% to new multi-year lows (US oil service firms set for hit from Trump tariffs, tumbling oil prices | Reuters), and major refiners’ shares hit their lowest levels in nearly two years amid fears the tariffs will choke fuel demand. The broader stock market had a brutal week (over $6 trillion in U.S. market value was wiped out) as investors fled risk assets (US oil service firms set for hit from Trump tariffs, tumbling oil prices | Reuters). In response to the turmoil, analysts are revising forecasts – Goldman Sachs cut its year-end Brent oil price target by $5, now seeing Brent at $66 in Dec 2025 (Oil dives 7% to lowest in over 3 years on China's tariffs | Reuters) – citing the combination of higher OPEC+ output and recession risks. On the upside, the latest data show some resilience in certain areas: U.S. natural gas prices ticked up on record LNG export volumes and a late-season storage build (US natgas prices climb 3% on record LNG flows, lower daily output | Reuters) (US natgas prices climb 3% on record LNG flows, lower daily output | Reuters), and Europe’s gas storage remains healthier than a year ago, helped by mild weather. Clean energy indexes have also been volatile; they initially rallied early in the year but gave up gains amid rising interest rates and now trade roughly flat year-to-date (investors are closely watching if government stimulus in the EU, US, and China can bolster these stocks again). Going forward, markets will track central banks’ policy signals (Fed Chair Jerome Powell noted that the tariff shock will likely bring “higher inflation and slower growth” (Oil dives 7% to lowest in over 3 years on China's tariffs | Reuters)) and any easing of trade tensions for clues on energy demand. Overall, current trends point to an uncertain macroeconomic backdrop, with oil and gas prices under pressure and energy investors exercising caution until clearer signs of global economic stability or policy resolution emerge.

What to Watch (April 2025 and Beyond)

OPEC+ output policy: Following April’s small production hike, oil markets will closely watch OPEC+ meetings for any adjustments to the supply plan. If prices weaken significantly or if certain members fail to comply, the alliance could reconsider the pace of further output increases. The next full OPEC+ ministerial meeting is expected by June, but an April monitoring committee meeting or member statements could signal the group’s stance on balancing market share versus price stability.
U.S.–China trade war escalations: On April 2, the U.S. is set to impose a broad package of “reciprocal” tariffs on imports (Oil slips on recession fears but posts 3rd weekly gain | Reuters). How China responds will be critical. Any retaliation (such as expanding tariffs on U.S. energy exports or other goods) could impact global growth forecasts and commodity demand. Investors will be watching for diplomatic engagement or further tit-for-tat measures in April that might either ease or inflame the trade conflict – a major wildcard for oil and LNG markets.
Legal battles over U.S. climate policy: Expect a flurry of lawsuits from states, environmental groups, and possibly industries in reaction to the regulatory rollbacks. In April, courts may begin hearing challenges to the EPA’s reversal of power plant carbon rules and vehicle emissions standards. Outcomes won’t be immediate, but any injunctions or rulings could alter the implementation of these rollbacks. Also watch whether the administration moves to formally withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement again – a decision that would garner global attention.
Europe’s energy and climate course: Key developments are looming in the EU. In April, EU energy ministers will discuss gas storage targets and energy security preparations for next winter (EU countries draft plan to soften gas storage targets, document shows) – any decision to relax storage rules or diversify supply further (LNG contracts, pipeline deals) will shape gas markets. Additionally, the European Commission’s regulatory “simplification” agenda bears watching: details on which environmental or climate rules might be trimmed could emerge and spark debate between industry and green groups. Europe’s carbon market and its planned Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism are entering new phases; any policy tweaks or guidance in April on these tools will affect industrial and clean tech investment decisions.
COP30 preparations and pledges: With the UN climate summit in November (COP30) approaching, nations are due to submit updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) in 2025. April could see behind-the-scenes work or even early announcements of enhanced climate targets or policies. In particular, keep an eye on G20 economies – e.g. China and India – for any signals of stronger climate action (or conversely, indications they will stick to current plans). Also notable will be Brazil’s actions as COP30 host: Lula has convened ministries to reconcile economic and environmental aims. A pending decision on the Amazon oil drilling project is expected in the coming weeks; approval or denial will send a message about Brazil’s climate leadership. Likewise, international climate finance discussions (at forums like the World Bank/IMF Spring Meetings in mid-April) could yield commitments to help developing countries transition, a key factor for global climate cooperation.
Energy tech and market trends: Several reports and events in April may influence the energy landscape. The IEA will release its annual Global Electric Vehicle Outlook, providing data on EV adoption and critical mineral supply – offering insights that could guide policymakers and investors. Likewise, Q1 earnings from major energy companies (oil majors, auto manufacturers, utilities) will start to roll in late April: their results and forecasts will reveal how corporate strategies are adapting to the current environment of volatile fossil fuel prices and accelerating clean energy momentum. Any big surprises (e.g. an oil major significantly upping its renewables spending, or a utility shelving a coal retirement plan) will be closely watched as bellwethers of broader trends.

Brief Analysis

The past week’s developments reveal a global energy landscape pulled in two opposing directions. On one hand, short-term economic and political pressures are reinforcing reliance on fossil fuels: the U.S. federal government is retreating from aggressive climate action in favor of oil and gas, OPEC+ is opening the spigots to defend market share, and trade disputes are raising fears of recession. These dynamics have delivered consumers a dose of near-term relief in energy prices (oil’s price plunge) but at the potential cost of slowing the energy transition. On the other hand, long-term clean energy momentum continues in many parts of the world – evident in record renewable deployment and EV sales last year – and key players are doubling down on climate solutions (Europe is pressing ahead with green industrial policies, and countries like Sweden and Poland are planning new nuclear capacity to hit emissions targets). The divergence between America’s policy U-turn and Europe’s climate resolve is especially striking: as one climate leader noted, “the crisis of a federal withdrawal in the United States…is an opportunity” for others to lead (Former world leaders urge EU to hold the line on climate | Reuters).

Overall, the balance of global energy strategy is at an inflection point. Policy rollbacks and fossil fuel investments are raising concerns about the world missing its climate goals, even as clean technologies become more competitive. High inflation and interest rates have made capital more expensive, causing some renewable projects (like U.S. offshore wind farms) to stall or seek better support – a reminder that the green transition is not immune to macroeconomic headwinds. Yet, market signals and corporate moves also indicate that the transition is irreversible in the long run: oil giants are facing shareholder and legal pressures to address environmental damage (e.g. Chevron’s $740 million coastal restoration payout), and the booming demand for EVs and clean tech in Asia is creating economies of scale that will drive costs down further.

In the coming months, a few overarching trends bear watching. First, geopolitics are now a decisive factor in energy and climate outcomes. The U.S.–China rivalry risks splintering global climate cooperation just when it’s most needed; conversely, it is also spurring a race for technological leadership in batteries, solar manufacturing, and critical minerals. Second, policy implementation and public investment (or the lack thereof) will determine if lofty climate targets translate into real emissions cuts. The standoff over U.S. clean energy funding and Europe’s resolve in sticking to its Green Deal will be telling. Third, the economic cycle – especially if a downturn hits – could temporarily reduce emissions (via lower energy demand) but also test governments’ commitment to green stimulus versus cheaper fossil energy.

In summary, global energy and climate policy is experiencing cross-currents: bullish clean energy progress buoyed by technology and international commitments, countered by bearish short-term moves to shore up energy security and inflation worries. The net effect in this period is a patchwork of advances and setbacks. The direction of travel for now remains toward decarbonization, but the pace is uneven. How the world navigates the next few months – resolving trade frictions, aligning energy security with climate action, and investing through economic uncertainty – will heavily influence whether 2025 becomes a year of renewed climate momentum or one that locks in a higher-emissions trajectory.

Key Quotes

“Trump’s new tariffs are ‘larger than expected’ and the economic fallout likely will be as well.” – Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, remarking on the sweeping U.S.–China tariffs and warning of their impact on growth and inflation (April 4, 2025) (Oil dives 7% to lowest in over 3 years on China's tariffs | Reuters)

“We are always exploring ways to create value from our power generation portfolio, including exiting activities that do not fit into our strategy or do not generate sufficient returns.” – Shell plc, in a statement explaining its decision to discontinue large-scale solar and wind projects in Brazil as part of a global pullback from low-return renewables (March 27, 2025) (Shell scraps solar, onshore wind power projects in Brazil | Reuters)

“The crisis of a federal withdrawal in the United States from everything to do with climate and science is an opportunity for the European Union… Moving as fast as the EU can on the green transition is exactly how to respond.” – Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland and chair of The Elders, urging Europe to uphold its climate leadership amid U.S. policy reversals and global distractions (Interview with Reuters, April 1, 2025) (Former world leaders urge EU to hold the line on climate | Reuters) (Former world leaders urge EU to hold the line on climate | Reuters)

“Once a law is properly enacted, the Constitution requires the President to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.’” – Excerpt from a letter by 25 U.S. Senators (led by Martin Heinrich and Patty Murray) to Energy Secretary Chris Wright, rebuking the administration’s attempts to defund congressionally-approved clean energy programs such as hydrogen hubs (April 2, 2025) (US senators urge energy secretary to follow law on clean energy grants, loans | Reuters)

What to Watch (April 2025 and Beyond)

U.S. Climate Policy Showdowns: How the conflict over federal clean energy funding unfolds – watch for the Department of Energy’s final decision on hydrogen hub grants and carbon capture projects under review (US senators urge energy secretary to follow law on clean energy grants, loans | Reuters). Any attempt to cancel or claw back funding will likely prompt legal challenges or congressional action. Additionally, keep an eye on the EPA and other agencies’ moves (or lack thereof) on climate regulations; with a more fossil-friendly administration, planned rules on power plant emissions, vehicle standards, or methane leaks could be delayed or weakened. Conversely, several U.S. states (California, New York, etc.) may step up their own climate policies in response, potentially creating a patchwork of aggressive state-level actions even as federal efforts stall.
Geopolitical and Trade Flashpoints: The trajectory of the U.S.–China trade war will be critical. Markets and governments are watching if back-channel talks lead to any easing of tariffs, or if instead the dispute escalates further into 2025. China’s next steps (having announced steep retaliatory tariffs) around April 10 will set the tone (Oil dives 7% to lowest in over 3 years on China's tariffs | Reuters). Likewise, monitor the European Union’s trade measures – in particular, the EU’s decision later this year on whether to impose tariffs on Chinese EV imports (pending the outcome of its anti-subsidy investigation). That could spark a Europe–China trade clash affecting the auto and battery industries. Also on the geopolitical front, OPEC+ is scheduled to meet in June 2025 to reassess output policy: will Saudi Arabia stick to its hard line on punishing quota violators with higher production, or could plunging prices force an about-face? Any sign of an OPEC+ policy reversal or further supply surge will immediately influence oil price expectations. Finally, Russia’s war in Ukraine remains a wildcard for energy – watch for developments in EU sanctions on Russian oil products (and Russia’s responses), as well as Europe’s gas storage refill progress over the summer, which could be complicated if LNG markets tighten unexpectedly.
Global Climate Leadership and Summits: With COP30 on the horizon (November 2025 in Belém, Brazil), the stage is set for key diplomatic moves. Brazil’s Amazon oil drilling decision will be one bellwether – President Lula is expected to meet with regulators again, and a final ruling on Petrobras’ Amazon mouth drilling license could come in the next few months (Brazil's Lula to meet with agency on Petrobras' bid to drill near mouth of Amazon river | Reuters) (Brazil's Ibama staff recommend against Petrobras drilling in Amazon region | Reuters). Approving it would draw international criticism ahead of COP30, whereas rejecting it might bolster Lula’s environmental standing. In the run-up to COP30, watch whether major economies update their climate pledges or policies: for example, does China announce any new emissions peaking measures or clean energy targets? Does India increase its renewable commitment or introduce coal limits beyond current plans? And will the EU maintain cohesion on its Green Deal initiatives? (Notably, Europe is debating climate disclosure rules and green industry incentives – any dilution of these under industry pressure would signal wavering resolve.) Also notable will be the Major Economies Forum and G7/G20 meetings over the summer, where the U.S. stance on climate cooperation versus competition with China will influence global dynamics. Look for any climate agreements or coal phase-out deals that could emerge from these forums, setting the stage for the UN Climate Summit.
Energy Market Trends and Economic Indicators: After the recent market volatility, stakeholders will be monitoring several indicators. Oil prices – will they stabilize in the $60s or slide further into the $50s per barrel? Much depends on global economic data: if the U.S. and European economies show signs of sharp slowdown (or if central banks hike interest rates further), expect downward pressure on energy demand forecasts. Conversely, any resolution of trade tensions or monetary policy easing could spark an oil price rebound. Keep an eye on fuel demand metrics heading into the summer driving season; early signs of soft gasoline consumption (due to high prices or weaker growth) could further confirm a demand downturn. In contrast, natural gas markets might enter a calmer phase – Europe’s storage levels and U.S. LNG export volumes over the summer will indicate if the gas supply can comfortably meet demand without price spikes. For investors, the performance of clean energy stocks and investment flows will be telling: will the passage of time and clarity on IRA implementation (tax credit guidance, etc.) lead to a resurgence in clean tech investment in the U.S., or will higher interest rates keep these stocks subdued? Similarly, announcements of any big cleantech manufacturing projects (e.g. new battery gigafactories or solar panel plants in the West, spurred by policy incentives) could signal momentum in building out domestic clean energy supply chains in response to geopolitical risks.
Electric Mobility and Tech Competition: The remainder of 2025 will see important developments in the EV space. Tesla’s Q1 earnings (due in late April) and any updates to its delivery outlook will be scrutinized – if Tesla shows signs of margin strain from price cuts or slower sales growth, it could reshape market sentiment. Meanwhile, BYD and other Chinese automakers are expected to accelerate their global expansion: watch for BYD’s entry into new European markets and whether it announces local production in Europe or Southeast Asia to bypass tariffs. Policy incentives for EVs in key markets are also in flux: for instance, the U.S. Treasury will continue refining the EV tax credit rules (like battery sourcing requirements) which could affect which models qualify and thus their sales. Europe is rolling out its Euro 7 vehicle emissions standards and considering new EV charging infrastructure mandates – progress on those fronts will influence automakers’ strategies. On the technology side, any breakthroughs in battery tech (such as a commercial solid-state battery announcement, or significant drops in battery prices) would be game-changers to watch for. Additionally, raw material supply deals – like lithium or nickel offtake agreements, or new mining projects – may be announced as nations and companies race to secure critical minerals. All these factors will contribute to the evolving competitive landscape of the global EV market.
Energy Transition Milestones: Despite the current turbulence, several positive clean energy milestones are anticipated in the near future. Record renewable projects are slated to come online in 2025 – for example, massive offshore wind farms in the North Sea and big solar parks in India and the Middle East. Monitoring their completion will be key to gauging if supply chain and financing challenges are being overcome. The first generation of small modular reactors (SMRs) is also inching closer to reality: in the U.S., companies backed by tech giants aim to break ground on pilot SMRs, and in Canada and the UK regulators may approve designs – progress here will indicate whether nuclear can scale up in the 2030s (SMR firms race to build a nuclear fuel supply chain - Reuters). Furthermore, the global stocktake of the Paris Agreement will conclude later in 2025, assessing collective progress toward climate goals. In the lead-up, we should watch for any countries announcing strengthened climate commitments (e.g. new targets for 2035 or 2040) or fossil fuel phase-out timelines. Finally, climate-related risks such as extreme weather could unfortunately become headlines as we approach summer – any major heatwaves, hurricanes, or wildfires would not only test energy systems (electric grids, oil/gas infrastructure resilience) but also could influence the public and political urgency on climate action as the world heads into pivotal negotiations.

Each of these unfolding stories – from policy battles in Washington to OPEC’s maneuvers in Riyadh, and from Beijing’s EV push to Brasília’s Amazon decisions – will shape the global energy and climate trajectory in 2025 and beyond. We will continue to monitor these developments closely in the weeks ahead.

Sources: Reuters, Bloomberg, Financial Times, IEA, Official statements (US senators urge energy secretary to follow law on clean energy grants, loans | Reuters) (Oil dives 7% to lowest in over 3 years on China's tariffs | Reuters) (Shell scraps solar, onshore wind power projects in Brazil | Reuters) (Seeking to punish cheaters, Saudi Arabia pushes OPEC+ to open oil taps | Reuters) (Former world leaders urge EU to hold the line on climate | Reuters), among others. All information is up to date as of April 6, 2025.

**You can't possibly deny me...**

**Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…**

¨Fossil Fuels, False Narratives, and Forgotten Lessons…

Twenty-one is an age of maturity—a milestone when one expects youth lessons to crystallize into wisdom. In 2021, the 21st century reached that symbolic “coming of age.” Yet, as the world passed this threshold, it became painfully clear that our society’s relationship with energy remains as immature as ever. The past few years have borne witness to a sobering déjà vu: surging oil prices, lines at fuel pumps, and geopolitical turmoil painfully reminiscent of the 1970s. Instead of entering adulthood enlightened by history, we seem to be re-enacting old mistakes. The urgency of this moment cannot be overstated. If we do not reckon with the instability of fossil fuels and the deception that prolongs their dominance, we risk condemning ourselves to an endless cycle of crises. This is not just another policy debate—it is a moral and practical imperative to remember our history and confront the truth. The stakes—a livable planet, stable economies, and the integrity of our democracies—could not be higher.

The Unlearned Lessons of Oil Shocks

How the Oil Crises of the 1970s Sparked a Global Shift in Electricity Generation:

For millions worldwide, images of endless lines of cars inching toward gas stations became iconic symbols of the turbulent 1970s. The Arab OPEC oil embargo of 1973, sparked by the Yom Kippur War, sent shockwaves through industrialized economies, quadrupling oil prices within months and plunging nations into economic turmoil. Less than six years later, the 1979 Iranian Revolution triggered another surge in global oil prices, further exposing the vulnerabilities of dependence on fossil fuels.

Before these shocks, oil was a central pillar of electricity generation, powering roughly a quarter of global electricity production. In the United States alone, oil accounted for nearly 17% of electricity generation in 1973. But as oil prices soared, energy policy underwent a seismic shift. Countries urgently sought alternatives to insulate their economies from future disruptions.

The response was swift and decisive. Nations accelerated their investments in coal, nuclear power, and emerging renewable technologies. In the U.S., legislation such as the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 mandated that new plants move from oil toward coal and nuclear energy. By 1985, oil's share of U.S. electricity had collapsed from 17% to just 4%, while coal surged to nearly 57%. Nuclear energy also saw rapid growth, climbing from under 5% to over 15% of the American electricity mix during the same period.

Globally, the push toward nuclear power was especially pronounced. France launched an aggressive nuclear buildout, with atomic energy growing from nearly zero in 1973 to over 70% of electricity generation by the mid-1980s. Other countries, including Germany, Japan, Sweden, and the UK, also significantly expanded their nuclear capabilities, driven by the pressing need for energy security.

The oil shocks also ignited interest in renewable energy sources. Although still in their infancy, solar and wind technology received unprecedented government funding and policy support, laying the groundwork for the renewable energy boom in subsequent decades. Legislation like the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 in the U.S. encouraged small-scale renewable energy generation, sparking early wind farms in California and pioneering solar developments.

The global energy landscape underwent profound changes in the decades following the oil crises. Oil’s role in electricity generation dwindled dramatically, falling from 25% globally in 1973 to under 3% by 2019. Natural gas, nuclear energy, and renewables filled the gap, diversifying energy portfolios and enhancing resilience against volatility.

These shifts were not just technical but philosophical. The crises of the 1970s taught policymakers that relying heavily on a single energy source—mainly imported fossil fuels—posed substantial risks. Energy diversity and security principles have become permanently embedded in global energy strategies.

Today, as the world grapples with climate change and seeks sustainable solutions, the lessons of the 1970s remain highly relevant. The legacy of those turbulent times is evident in every wind turbine spinning on a distant hillside and every solar panel catching the afternoon sun. The oil crises did more than create panic at the pumps; they reshaped how we power our world.

A Retreat from Clean Energy Progress

One might have expected the oil shocks to spark a permanent pivot to alternative energy. And, for a time, they did spur action. The late 1970s saw a flurry of interest in conservation and renewables. Governments scrambled to insulate themselves from the oil weapon. President Carter pushed a bold agenda of efficiency and innovation in the United States: he installed solar panels atop the White House in 1979 to symbolise a new direction. He envisioned deriving 20% of U.S. energy from renewables by the year 2000, rallying Americans to see this challenge as part of “one of the greatest and most exciting adventures ever undertaken” (Where Did the Carter White House's Solar Panels Go? | Scientific American). Other nations invested in nuclear power, wind turbines, and research into synthetic fuels. It was a moment of possibility born from crisis.

But when oil became cheap again, that resolve crumbled. In the 1980s, the momentum toward clean energy screeched to a halt. The incoming administration of Ronald Reagan dismantled the progress—removing Carter’s solar panels during a White House roof repair in 1986 and never reinstalling them. This was more than a symbolic act. By 1986, the U.S. government had gutted funding for renewable energy research. It slashed tax incentives for solar and wind, recommitting the nation to “cheap” fossil fuels (often imported) instead. Reagan scoffed that the Department of Energy hadn’t “produced a single barrel of oil,” as if measuring success only in continued petroleum output. In effect, the “road not taken”—toward sustainable energy—was abandoned just as it was beginning to unfold.

This pattern occurred on a global scale. In the 1980s and 1990s, initial attempts to invest in solar and wind energy struggled due to a lack of funding and attention. Oil-exporting countries, benefiting from high revenues, continued to invest heavily in fossil fuels. In the West, consumer culture resumed its reliance on oil, characterized by an increase in the popularity of cars and suburban expansion. Instead of moving away from our dependence on the unstable resource of petroleum, the world fell back into old habits. By the early 2000s, fossil fuels dominated, accounting for most energy use worldwide. When climate scientists began warning with increasing urgency that this path was not only financially unstable but also environmentally devastating, they encountered significant resistance—primarily built by a deliberate campaign of misinformation.

Disinformation: The Fossil Fuel Industry’s Propaganda War

If the world’s retreat from clean energy is a tragedy, it is not an accident. Powerful interests worked hard to muddy the waters and manipulate public perception. In fact, since the 1980s, the fossil fuel industry has perpetrated a multi-decade, multibillion-dollar disinformation campaign aimed at delaying climate action (The forgotten oil ads that told us climate change was nothing | Environment | The Guardian). The playbook was cynically brilliant: confuse the public, sow doubt about science, and assure everyone that more oil and gas posed no problem. Advertising was one weapon of choice. In the 1980s, as the science of global warming first gained attention, oil companies ran cheerful ads declaring that climate change was uncertain or a myth. Some ads carried headlines like “Oil pumps life,” extolling petroleum as the benevolent force of modern civilization. Others accused environmentalists of scaremongering—one campaign derided the “lies they tell our children,” implying that the real danger was not a changing climate but those who dared question the fossil-fueled status quo.

This assault on truth continued unabated for decades. Think tanks and front groups funded by coal and oil magnates churned out reports downplaying the climate threat, which friendly politicians then waved through Congress. Scientists who sounded the alarm were attacked as frauds or radicals. A now-infamous memo from that era declared the strategy bluntly: “Doubt is our product,” said tobacco executives in the 1960s, and Big Oil took that lesson to heart. By the 1990s and 2000s, as evidence of global warming became more difficult to deny, the narrative shifted slightly – from “it’s not happening” to “it’s happening but not our fault” or “it’s too expensive to fix”. The goal was never to win an intellectual argument but to stall action long enough to rake in a few more decades of profits.

The consequences of this campaign have been staggering. Public opinion is fractured and polarized. Meaningful climate policy in the U.S. was stymied repeatedly, even as most Americans desire action. Internationally, climate agreements were weakened under pressure from oil-backed lobbying. Meanwhile, greenhouse gas emissions climbed, and the clock ticked away. Perhaps the most Orwellian twist came just recently: in 2021, the CEOs of major oil companies testified before Congress about their role in spreading climate disinformation – and they brazenly lied under oath, denying what a mountain of documents and research has proven. As two historians of industry propaganda summarized it, the fossil fuel industry is now “misleading the public about its history of misleading the public.” The snake is eating its tail; the lie has become truth in the minds of those who peddle it.

The collective amnesia about the oil shocks…

We've encountered this situation before, and today feels even worse, especially after reading the remarkable editorial titled L’Internationale des censeurs by Benoît Bréville published in Le Monde Diplomatique this March. The parallels with history’s great propaganda campaigns are impossible to ignore. In George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984, the ruling Party continually rewrites history and manipulates language to secure its power. “Everything faded into mist. The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie becomes truth,” Orwell wrote (Part 1, Section 7, 1984). Reading these words today feels unsettlingly familiar. The collective amnesia about the oil shocks — those defining events of the 20th century — is one example of “erasure.” How often do our current energy debates mention the 1973 or 1979 crises? Seldom, if at all. It is as if they never happened or as if their lessons hold no value. Instead, we hear rosy talk of “energy dominance” and endless resources without reckoning with the past instability. The disinformation machine has encouraged us to forget or trivialize real history, replacing it with a fantasy that more oil is always the answer.

Orwell also warned of “Newspeak”: language designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought. Today, we see our version of Newspeak in the energy realm. Consider the lexicon being used to rebrand fossil fuels. In 2019, a U.S. government official went so far as to dub natural gas “freedom gas” and even referred to gas molecules as “molecules of U.S. freedom” (US energy department rebrands fossil fuels as 'molecules of freedom' | Gas | The Guardian) (US energy department rebrands fossil fuels as 'molecules of freedom' | Gas | The Guardian). This absurd euphemism—straight out of a marketing fever dream—was offered with a straight face in an official press release, as if calling gas by a patriotic name could disguise the fact that it’s the same old methane, driving the same warming of our atmosphere. Warping language to mask uncomfortable truths is a classic propaganda tactic. During World War I, deaths became “collateral damage.” During the Cold War, nuclear missiles were “peacekeepers.” And now, amid a climate crisis, gas is “freedom.” The irony would be laughable if the stakes weren’t so high.

We also hear the language of false choices and scapegoats. When blackouts or price spikes occur, the blame is often placed (incorrectly) on renewable energy or environmental regulations. Politicians speak of “clean coal” – a contradiction in terms – or tout oil drilling as a path to “energy independence” even as it deepens our dependence on a volatile global market. This is reminiscent of Orwell’s Ministry of Truth, which spewed slogans like “War is Peace” and “Ignorance is Strength.” Today’s equivalent might be “Pollution is Clean” or “Dependence is Independence.” Such doublespeak aims to dull the public’s critical thinking through constant repetition. If enough individuals accept these linguistic distortions, taking bold climate action becomes more difficult, and the fossil fuel status quo persists.

Conclusion: Remembering the Past, Protecting the Future

History does not repeat in perfect loops, but its echoes are loud for those willing to listen. Nearly half a century has passed since the first great oil shock, enough time for a new generation to come of age with little knowledge of that turbulent era. It is said that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it; today, we would add that those who distort history risk something even worse. When disinformation and censorship poison the well of public discourse, society loses its ability to learn, adapt, and make rational choices. We find ourselves unmoored, swayed by whoever shouts the most comforting lie or silences the most inconvenient truth. In such a state, progress becomes impossible and catastrophe becomes inevitable.

It is time to break this cycle of amnesia and manipulation. The instability of fossil fuels—laid bare by decades of price shocks and political crises—is not a partisan talking point but a plain fact of life. We ignore that reality at our peril. Every new oil boom or gas expansion that lulls us into complacency will eventually be followed by a bust or a shortage that throws us into chaos. We can choose to remember the lines at the gas stations in 1973, the desperate pleas of leaders in 1979, the economic pain of 2008, and the wake-up call of 2022. We can remember, and more importantly, we can act on that remembrance by accelerating the transition to stable, clean, local energy sources that cannot be weaponized or depleted on a whim.

Equally, we must demand honesty and transparency from our leaders and institutions. The war on truth—from outright climate denial to the insidious spin of corporate PR and government doublespeak—must be confronted at every turn. This means supporting independent journalism and science, calling out lies when we see them, and refusing to let false narratives go unchallenged. It means protecting whistleblowers and truth-tellers instead of punishing them. And it means we take responsibility to stay informed and think critically rather than simply consuming the next soothing falsehood that comes across our screen.

The climate is warming, the clock is ticking, and the truth is clear—if we dare to face it. In an age of misinformation, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. So let us be revolutionaries in the most responsible sense: truth-tellers, memory-keepers, and builders of a new energy future. The challenges are immense, but so is our capacity for change when reality pierces through illusion. The unstable world of oil has had its century. Now, armed with knowledge of the past and a commitment to honesty, we can forge a more stable, sustainable, and just path forward. Future generations will thank us not for the comfort of soothing lies but for the courage of inconvenient truths. The time to act is now, before the door of opportunity closes, and we find ourselves, once again, gasping in the fumes of our forgetfulness.

History has given us a lesson. The truth is whispering its guidance. We must choose to listen.

A dangerous ilusions…

In the first quarter of the 21st century, the geopolitical landscape has been profoundly reshaped by a series of transformative shifts, dismantling deeply held illusions of control. The post-Cold War optimism about a stable, unipolar liberal order—once confidently heralded as the "end of history"—has unravelled, giving way to a far more volatile and complex reality. Powers and institutions previously perceived as dominant now confront the stark limits of their influence, challenged by emerging actors and unforeseen forces. Energy crises, pandemics, resurgent authoritarianism, and rapidly shifting alliances have exposed vulnerabilities in systems that global leaders believed were firmly under their control. Today's multipolar era is marked by a diffusion of power among diverse states and unpredictable dynamics that defy the orderly assumptions of earlier decades. In this uncertain environment, control increasingly reveals itself as an illusion—a reassuring narrative steadily eroded by complex realities on the ground.

Explore:

The Energy Gambit: From Nuclear Dreams to Gas Leverage – Declining nuclear energy ambitions and the rise of natural gas as a tool of geopolitical coercion.
Technocratic Authoritarianism: A New Face of Eugenics? – The tightening grip of technocrats, surveillance states, and subtle revival of eugenics-inspired policies.

The Energy Gambit: From Nuclear Dreams to Gas Leverage…

For decades, nuclear energy was sold as the pinnacle of human mastery over nature – a near-limitless source of power that promised energy independence and geopolitical clout. In the mid-20th century, world leaders imagined gleaming fleets of reactors powering their economies and freeing them from the vagaries of fossil fuels. By the 1990s, however, the sheen of the atomic age was fading. The Chernobyl disaster of 1986 and the Fukushima meltdown in 2011 underscored the catastrophic risks of nuclear power, hardening public skepticism. Meanwhile, the rapid expansion of renewable energy and the abundant supply of natural gas – often cheaper and quicker to deploy – created a competitive alternative. What followed was a slow global retreat from nuclear ambitions. Nuclear power’s share of global electricity generation declined from a peak of about 17.5% in 1996 to roughly 10% by 2020, as more countries halted or scaled back their reactor programs (Study shows U.S. has the most nuclear reactors in 2021 | World Economic Forum). While nations like China continued building reactors, many others – from Japan and Germany to Belgium and South Korea – either froze new nuclear projects or pledged phase-outs in response to safety fears and public pressure. The grand dream of a nuclear-powered future gave way to an age of pragmatism and caution.

This retreat has had profound geopolitical implications. As nuclear energy’s role receded, natural gas emerged as a critical pillar of the global energy mix – and a potent instrument of geopolitical leverage. Gas, once seen merely as a bridge fuel, became a strategic asset coveted by nations and cartels. Unlike nuclear plants, which are capital-intensive and take years to build, gas infrastructure (pipelines, LNG terminals) offered flexibility and relatively quick returns. Producers of natural gas – from Russia and Qatar to the United States – found eager markets, particularly in energy-hungry Europe and Asia. Europe, in particular, increasingly relied on imported gas to compensate for its nuclear drawdown and to back up intermittent renewables. Nowhere was this dynamic more evident than in Germany. Long the economic engine of Europe, Germany decided to eliminate nuclear power, accelerating a phase-out after Fukushima. In April 2023, the last three German reactors shut down for good, closing the chapter on atomic energy in Germany’s grid (Q&A - Germany's nuclear exit: One year after) (Germany's Energy Crisis: Europe's Leading Economy is Falling Behind). But the move, born of environmental and safety concerns, left Germany and its neighbors more dependent on natural gas to keep the lights on. When Russia – Europe’s principal gas supplier – invaded Ukraine in 2022, it weaponized that very dependency with brutal efficiency (Europe’s messy Russian gas divorce) (Europe’s messy Russian gas divorce).

Russia’s strategy was decades in the making. Under the guise of mutually beneficial commerce, Moscow had steadily tightened Europe’s bind through long-term gas contracts and pipeline projects. By the 2010s, roughly 40% of Europe’s natural gas imports came from Russia. This heavy reliance created an illusion of energy interdependence that many European leaders complacently accepted – an illusion shattered when geopolitics turned hostile. In the months preceding the Ukraine invasion, the Kremlin deliberately curtailed gas deliveries. It allowed its European storage facilities to dwindle, setting the stage for a supply crunch (Europe’s messy Russian gas divorce). After tanks crossed the Ukrainian border in February 2022, Moscow dramatically slashed pipeline flows, at one point completely shutting the key Nord Stream pipeline. The goal was clear: coerce Europe into acquiescence by plunging it into cold and darkness, splinter European unity, and deter support for Kyiv. Natural gas – often called the “blue gold” of the 21st century – has become Vladimir Putin’s sharpest geopolitical weapon.

Initially, the tactic exacted a heavy toll. European natural gas prices spiked to record highs through 2022, and an energy panic set in. Governments scrambled to avert blackouts and factory shutdowns. Germany, facing an abrupt cutoff of the cheap Russian gas that had powered its industries for years, teetered on the brink of recession. Indeed, by 2023, Germany had slipped into an economic slump, largely thanks to the loss of Russian gas supplies and the simultaneous shutdown of its nuclear plants (Germany's Energy Crisis: Europe's Leading Economy is Falling Behind). What had been touted as a responsible energy policy – the Energiewende away from nuclear – suddenly looked like a strategic vulnerability. Meanwhile, countries like Hungary and Serbia, more friendly to Moscow, secured gas lifelines, illustrating how Russia can reward or punish by modulating the gas valve. The Kremlin’s gambit seemed to confirm fears that Europe’s climate-conscious retreat from nuclear power had inadvertently strengthened the hand of petrostates.

And yet, the endgame did not play out entirely as Moscow envisioned. European nations – displaying a resolve few anticipated – moved with astonishing speed to blunt Russia’s energy weapon. The European Union coordinated an emergency reduction in gas demand, filling storage caverns before winter and securing alternative supplies from Norway, North Africa and an armada of liquefied natural gas (LNG) shipments from the United States and Qatar. New LNG import terminals were fast-tracked from the Baltic coast of Poland to the shores of Germany’s North Sea. By early 2023, Russian pipeline gas, once the lifeblood of Europe’s energy system, had been replaced – an unprecedented pivot that would have been politically unthinkable before the war (Europe’s messy Russian gas divorce). The self-congratulatory narrative in European capitals was that Putin’s attempt to blackmail Europe had backfired, costing Russia its biggest customer and a key source of revenue. Indeed, by 2023, Russia’s share of Europe’s gas imports plummeted, and Gazprom was left flaring gas it could no longer sell. One European official quipped that Putin had “spent decades building up leverage, only to throw it away in a single year.” In reality, the transition was painful – energy-intensive industries from chemicals to steel in Europe suffered or relocated, and households endured soaring utility bills. But by winter 2023–24, natural gas prices had fallen back to pre-crisis levels, and the worst-case scenario of energy rationing was averted. Europe has, in effect, partially immunized itself against the Russian gas weapon, though at a steep economic cost.

The broader lesson remains: control over energy is a double-edged sword. Suppose Europe learned that it could survive without Russian gas, and Russia learned that over-reliance on one primary market (Europe) could be ruinous – unlike oil, which can be sold globally. In that case, pipeline gas is essentially stranded without willing nearby buyers. The geopolitical leverage of gas thus cuts both ways; wielding it as a weapon can invite self-inflicted wounds. The episode also underscored that flexibility and diversification are as crucial as resource abundance in today's multipolar energy landscape. The United States, once a net energy importer, became a critical LNG supplier to Europe almost overnight, turning its shale gas boom into a strategic influence. Middle Eastern producers like Qatar similarly gained clout, signing 20- and 30-year contracts to anchor Asia and Europe’s future gas needs. New energy partnerships bloomed: Algeria and Italy deepened gas ties, and Azerbaijan stepped up pipeline flows to Southern Europe. In essence, Moscow’s aggressive move accelerated a global reshuffling of energy relationships. In this scramble, gas-rich states could expand their sway, and consumers learned never to put all their eggs in one basket.

Meanwhile, the decline of nuclear energy continues to shape this new energy geopolitics. Countries that doubled down on reactor programs – such as China, India, and Russia itself – frame their investments in nuclear technology as ways to secure energy independence and even export influence (through reactor sales and fuel services) in the coming decades. However, in liberal democracies, public and political will has often turned against nuclear power. Despite beginning to restart some reactors after a post-Fukushima shutdown, Japan remains cautious. Belgium and Spain have timelines to phase out nuclear generation in the 2020s and 2030s (though Belgium delayed its phase-out by a decade due to the gas crisis). In the United States, atomic power struggles to compete economically with cheap gas and subsidized renewables, leading to reactor closures. Only France stands as a significant exception in the West – maintaining a robust nuclear fleet that still provides about 70% of its electricity, which Paris touts as both a climate-friendly asset and a strategic buffer against gas geopolitics. Even so, France faced embarrassment in 2022 when corrosion problems forced many reactors offline, contributing to Europe’s power crunch. The incident revealed that simply having nuclear plants is insufficient; they must be maintained and modernized, lest technical failures shatter the illusion of secure capacity.

In hindsight, the world’s energy “control illusions” become apparent. Those who assumed that nuclear power would guarantee energy autonomy found that political will and public trust are fickle variables beyond technocratic control. Germany’s leaders, for instance, believed they could simultaneously abandon nuclear power and deepen dependence on imported gas without incurring strategic risk – an illusion dispelled by war. Likewise, Russia thought it could control Europe through energy, only to find that coercion in one domain (gas) provoked an equal and opposite reaction that undercut its influence. The new reality is a more multipolar energy order: one in which no single technology or supplier holds absolute sway and where energy security is achieved through diversity and resilience rather than any silver-bullet solution. This is an era where natural gas, for all its newfound importance, is also a transient player in the transition to renewables – and where even renewables come with their geopolitical baggage (from supply chains of critical minerals to land use conflicts). In short, the illusion that any country could completely control its energy destiny has given way to an understanding that interdependence and volatility are here to stay.

Geopolitically, natural gas will remain a lever of influence, but its utility as a weapon may diminish if buyers have alternatives. Europe’s messy divorce from Russian gas (Europe's messy Russian gas divorce - Brookings Institution) demonstrated the power and limits of that lever. In the coming years, attention is turning to other energy frontiers: the race for critical minerals needed for batteries and renewable tech, and whether the nuclear decline can be reversed by innovations like small modular reactors (SMRs) to provide carbon-free baseload power. Even as climate imperatives push countries to decarbonize, the road to that green future is strewn with geopolitical contests – control of lithium mines or the Strait of Hormuz. The key takeaway from the early 2020s is that no energy source is purely a matter of engineering; each carries geopolitical weight. In the era of multipolar geopolitics, energy policy is security policy.

Thus, the stage is set for a continued global energy gambit. Nations will leverage what they have – oil, gas, technology, or innovation – to jockey for position, and those dependent on others will seek to mitigate that dependence. The decline of nuclear power in many regions has inadvertently elevated the role of hydrocarbons like natural gas in international affairs, at least in the short term. But this may not be permanent. If the 2020s taught anything, it is that fortunes can reverse quickly. For example, a breakthrough in fusion energy or battery storage could upend the balance again. Policymakers must, therefore, approach the illusion of control with humility: today’s leverage can become tomorrow’s liability. As Europe found in its bid to go green while relying on an authoritarian supplier, geopolitics has humbled even the best-laid plans.

Technocratic Authoritarianism: A New Face of Eugenics?

Even as energy crises make headlines, a quieter shift in governance and ideology occurs, bringing uncomfortable historical echoes back to the forefront. In several countries, particularly those led by authoritarian or populist figures, we are witnessing the rise of technocratic authoritarianism. This form of governance prioritizes efficiency, surveillance, and the authority of expertise while diminishing democratic accountability.

Modern authoritarian regimes increasingly utilize technological and scientific rhetoric to shape society, drawing parallels to the discredited ideologies of 20th-century eugenics. Although few today use the term "eugenics" openly, many state policies and emerging biotechnologies reflect its core principles: optimizing a population’s genetic, behavioral, or social traits at the expense of individual rights and human dignity. This note examines how technocratic governance revives eugenic thinking under a new guise, focusing on examples from China, Russia, the United States, and other regions.

We analyze how technology-driven control mechanisms and assertions of scientific authority are employed to justify policies that, knowingly or unknowingly, discriminate and stratify individuals. Despite the use of euphemisms and a high-tech facade—such as “population quality,” “smart surveillance,” and “precision prevention,” the pressing question remains: Is this the new face of eugenics?

Eugenics Past: From Pseudoscience to Policy

Eugenics is the belief in improving the genetic quality of the human population (a beautiful person with high EQ.) through controlled reproduction. This movement gained popularity in the early 20th century and was initially seen as a scientific endeavor. In the United States, many prominent academics and politicians supported eugenics, leading to policies such as forced sterilization laws. Indiana passed the first such law in 1907. In the Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell (1927), the Court upheld the sterilization of individuals deemed “unfit,” which encouraged numerous states to implement similar laws. By the time World War II began, approximately 60,000 Americans had been involuntarily sterilized under eugenic laws. Similar practices emerged globally, in European countries and Latin America, often targeting the mentally ill, disabled, or socially marginalized groups.

Nazi Germany’s racial hygiene program represented a horrific extreme of eugenics. Between 1934 and 1939, Nazi “Hereditary Health Courts” ordered approximately 400,000 forced sterilizations. During the years 1941 to 1945, the regime systematically murdered tens of thousands in the name of “racial purity” (Eugenics and Involuntary Sterilization: 1907-2015 - PubMed). The revelation of these atrocities after World War II largely discredited eugenics as both a scientific and moral endeavor. Overt advocacy for eugenics largely disappeared from public policy discussions after 1945, leading many countries to repeal or phase out their sterilization programs. However, the core mindset of eugenics—believing that society can be improved by eliminating undesirable traits or individuals—did not simply vanish. Instead, it went underground or mutated into new forms. As historian Philip Reilly notes, “simplistic eugenic thinking has faded, but coerced sterilization remains widespread, especially in China and India. In many parts of the world, involuntary sterilization is still intermittently used against minority groups” (Eugenics and Involuntary Sterilization: 1907-2015 - PubMed).

Ideas associated with eugenics, though stripped of the name, persist in discussions surrounding reproductive rights, immigration, and human genetics. The latter half of the 20th century saw the emergence of human rights principles explicitly rejecting discrimination based on genetics or lineage. Nevertheless, scientific and political elites continued to explore ideas about selectively engineering society. The concept of “new eugenics” surfaced among bioethicists in the 1970s and 1980s, referring to using emerging genetic technologies to select or enhance desired traits in children. Unlike the older, state-led eugenics, this “new” eugenics is often framed as a matter of individual choice or free-market innovation—frequently termed “liberal eugenics.” For instance, ethicist Nicholas Agar argues that parents should be free to use genetic enhancements on their offspring to pursue better lives (Agar, 2004). However, critics warned that even in the absence of government coercion, such practices could result in de facto eugenic outcomes, such as stigmatization of individuals with disabilities, new forms of inequality, and a mindset that treats human life as a product to be optimized.

By the early 21st century, advances in biotechnology—including prenatal screening, in vitro fertilization (IVF), and gene editing—enabled the selection of embryos free from specific genetic disorders or potentially possessing preferred traits. While the primary goal of these technologies is often to prevent severe disease, disability rights advocates caution against a slippery slope. One scholarly article notes that “some have referred to these reproductive technologies as the ‘new eugenics’ or ‘liberal eugenics’, achieved via private medical choices rather than state-driven population control” (Confronting the Legacy of Eugenics and Ableism: Towards Anti-Ableist Bioethics Education - PMC). In 2020, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities warned that “current developments in medical research and practice may revive eugenic ideas if safeguards for those affected are not ensured” (Confronting the Legacy of Eugenics and Ableism: Towards Anti-Ableist Bioscience Education - PMC). In other words, even without explicitly adopting eugenics, modern societies risk recapitulating its logic through the unchecked use of science and technology.

Technocracy and the Temptation of Social Engineering

Parallel to these biomedical trends, governance in many countries has become increasingly “technocratic” – emphasizing technical expertise, data, and algorithms as bases for decision-making. This technocratic turn often promises efficient, value-neutral solutions to social problems: let the data speak and let algorithms optimize public policy. Yet behind this façade of scientific objectivity, old biases and illiberal ambitions can lurk. As scholars of data ethics point out, many algorithmic systems encode assumptions that resonate with eugenics and social Darwinism. Wendy Hui Kyong Chun, for instance, argues that contemporary significant data practices embody “segregation [and] eugenics” through their very design (Discriminating Data: Wendy Chun in Conversation with Lisa Nakamura). She notes that “correlation, which grounds big data’s predictive potential, stems from twentieth-century eugenic attempts to ‘breed’ a better future”. In other words, the statistical techniques underpinning modern predictive analytics have intellectual roots in eugenic science – where correlation was often misused to tie social outcomes (like poverty or crime) to heredity or race.

The marriage of scientific authority and authoritarian ambition has a long history. Early 20th-century eugenicists eagerly provided scientific rationales for racist and classist policies; today’s technocrats may unwittingly do the same with algorithms and surveillance technology. In an authoritarian regime, technocracy can become a convenient fig leaf: policies that might be seen as repressive or discriminatory are packaged as the outcome of objective, data-driven analysis or benevolent expertise. This phenomenon has been described as “authoritarian high-modernism” – a term political scientist James C. Scott used to describe states that impose top-down social engineering in the name of scientific progress. Whether it is Soviet agronomists claiming scientific backing for catastrophic farm collectivization or today’s authorities claiming AI will ensure “social harmony,” the pattern is similar. When leaders defer to “science” or “technology” as infallible, it can foster a culture of deference that undermines democratic oversight (Authoritarian Regime - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics). In extreme cases, it becomes a form of “scientific authoritarianism” – where dissent is silenced as ignorant or anti-progress, and individuals are reduced to data points to be managed.

Notably, eugenic ideology was a technocratic project: it treated humans as stock to be measured, classified, and improved by experts. Today, new forms of classification and control – from credit scores to facial recognition – carry a similar hubris. Below, we explore several case studies where technology-enabled control mechanisms may constitute a new form of eugenic governance, intentionally or otherwise. These examples illustrate how euphemistic language, biometric surveillance, and algorithmic bias are converging to shape societies in ways that recall the eugenic ideal of a “better” (i.e., more governed, more homogeneous) population.

China: “Upgrading Population Quality” Through Data and Discipline

One prominent example of technocratic authoritarianism is seen in the People’s Republic of China, which actively shapes its population’s size and “quality.” The Chinese Communist Party has a history of social engineering in reproduction, most notably through the One-Child Policy, which led to forced abortions and sterilizations.

Recently, facing an ageing population and declining birth rates, China has shifted to a pro-natalist stance but is increasingly focused on controlling who can reproduce. The 14th Five-Year Plan (2021–2025) aims at “upgrading population quality,” promoting higher birth rates among the Han Chinese majority, particularly the educated and wealthy while suppressing birth rates among ethnic minorities such as the Uyghurs.

In Xinjiang, Uyghur women have been subjected to forced abortions and sterilizations, with officials labelling them as “baby-making machines.” A China specialist noted the unmistakable eugenic undertones of these policies. As Han women are encouraged to have more children, coercive measures are being taken to reduce births among Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities. Many governments, including the U.S., have condemned these actions as a form of genocide.

It is no coincidence that China’s rhetoric of “population quality” harkens back to overt eugenics. In the early 1990s, Chinese policymakers openly embraced eugenic ideas. A 1993 law initially titled the “On Eugenics and Health Protection Act” sought to “improve population quality” by forbidding marriage or childbearing for people with certain genetic diseases and disabilities (China: Upgrading population quality - Population Matters). Although the law was later euphemistically renamed the Maternal and Infant Health Care Law, its eugenic intent was clear: to prevent the birth of “inferior” babies. Chinese officials at the time spoke of yousheng (literally “healthy birth” or “superior birth”) as a national priority, promoting prenatal screenings and abortions of fetuses with abnormalities. This state-driven eugenics program was justified under the banner of public health and modernization. Even after the term eugenics fell out of favor in China (partly due to international criticism), the concept of improving renkou suzhi – population quality – remained embedded in policy discourse. As one scholarly review notes, Chinese geneticists into the 2000s widely agreed that “an important goal of human genetics was ‘improvement of the population quality’”.

Conclusion: Resisting the New Eugenics

The patterns highlighted – from China’s high-tech authoritarianism to Western bio-optimism – suggest that the core temptations of eugenics are still with us. It is the temptation to trespass on human rights to pursue a technocratic vision of “perfection” or “security.” Today’s tools may be AI algorithms, genomic sequencing, and mass databases. Still, they can be marshalled toward the same ends that old eugenic laws and programs sought: a “better” society as defined by those in power, even if it means coercion and exclusion of those who don’t fit the ideal.

However, awareness is growing. Journalists, activists, and scholars are drawing connections between these new practices and historical eugenics, sounding alarm bells. For instance, the New York Times has published investigations into China’s genomic surveillance and warned of a “21st-century dystopia” if Social Credit-style systems spread. Human Rights Watch and others call for strict limits on biometric surveillance and for banning AI technologies that enable racial profiling or social scoring (China: Big Data Program Targets Xinjiang’s Muslims | Human Rights Watch). In liberal contexts, there are calls for stronger bioethics oversight and even international treaties to prohibit specific genetic enhancements – a parallel to earlier prohibitions on eugenic practices (Confronting the Legacy of Eugenics and Ableism: Towards Anti-Ableist Bioscience Education - PMC ). In 2019, a global moratorium on heritable gene editing was proposed by leading scientists, precisely out of fear that it could open the door to a new era of eugenics.

Democracy, transparency, and public debate are key to resisting these trends. If the lessons of the 20th century teach us anything, the value of human diversity and individual rights must trump utopian schemes. As attractive as “optimizing” society may sound, the question is optimized for whom, and at what cost? Policies that concentrate power in the hands of self-proclaimed experts and treat people as data points or breeding stock must be continually scrutinized. It is possible to enjoy the benefits of technology without falling into technocratic authoritarianism, but this requires vigilance, inclusive dialogue, and a strong commitment to ethical principles.

Ultimately, we must confront the uncomfortable reality that echoes of eugenics exist in our world today. These echoes can be heard in the halls of power, where algorithms determine life outcomes, seen in clinics where embryos are selected and felt in communities subject to increased surveillance. Recognizing these echoes is the first step. The next step is to reject the misleading promises of the new eugenics, no matter how scientific they may seem.

As we navigate the age of AI and genomics, humanity should remember that our worth cannot be quantified, scored, or engineered. Any governance that treats humans in this way risks reviving one of history’s darkest chapters.

References

Agar, N. (2004). Liberal Eugenics: In Defence of Human Enhancement. Blackwell Publishing.
Chun, W. H. K. (2021). Discriminating Data: Correlation, Neighborhoods, and the New Politics of Recognition. MIT Press. (Discriminating Data: Wendy Chun in Conversation with Lisa Nakamura)
Human Rights Watch. (2017, Dec 13). China: Minority Region Collects DNA from Millions (China: Minority Region Collects DNA from Millions | Human Rights Watch) (China: Minority Region Collects DNA from Millions | Human Rights Watch). Human Rights Watch News.
Human Rights Watch. (2017, Dec 12). China’s Chilling ‘Social Credit’ Blacklist (China’s Chilling ‘Social Credit’ Blacklist | Human Rights Watch). Human Rights Watch News (by M. Wang).
Human Rights Watch. (2020, Dec 9). China: Big Data Program Targets Xinjiang’s Muslims (China: Big Data Program Targets Xinjiang’s Muslims | Human Rights Watch) (China: Big Data Program Targets Xinjiang’s Muslims | Human Rights Watch). Human Rights Watch News.
Human Rights Watch. (2022, Sep 5). China: New Evidence of Mass DNA Collection in Tibet (China: New Evidence of Mass DNA Collection in Tibet | Human Rights Watch) (China: New Evidence of Mass DNA Collection in Tibet | Human Rights Watch). Human Rights Watch Report.
Palmer, E. (2021, Apr 29). Feminists thwarting China’s population goals (Feminists thwarting China's population goals - POLITICO). Politico China Watcher.
Population Matters. (2025, Feb 7). China: Upgrading population quality (China: Upgrading population quality - Population Matters) (China: Upgrading population quality - Population Matters). Population Matters News.
Reilly, P. R. (2015). Eugenics and Involuntary Sterilization: 1907-2015. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 16, 351-368 (Eugenics and Involuntary Sterilization: 1907-2015 - PubMed) (Eugenics and Involuntary Sterilization: 1907-2015 - PubMed).
Richardson, S. & Reynolds, I. (2020). Opinion: Eugenics in the era of CRISPR. New York Times.
Smith, G. & Wills, M. (2024, Oct 18). US startup charging couples to ‘screen embryos for IQ’ (US startup charging couples to ‘screen embryos for IQ’ | Genetics | The Guardian). The Guardian.
Stop LAPD Spying Coalition. (2021). Automating Banishment: The Surveillance and Policing of Looted Land (Politicians Move to Limit Predictive Policing After Years of Controversial Failures | TechPolicy.Press). (Referenced via The Guardian).
Zhang, S. (2017). China’s DNA collecting in Xinjiang. The Atlantic. (Describing HRW findings on biometric surveillance).
Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. PublicAffairs. (Discusses Social Credit and “instrumentarian” power).

In December 2023, Energy Central recognized outstanding contributors within the Energy & Sustainability Network during the 'Top Voices' event. The recipients of this honor were highlighted in six articles, showcasing the acknowledgment from the community. The platform facilitates professionals in disseminating their work, engaging with peers, and collaborating with industry influencers. Congratulations are extended to the 2023 Top Voices: David Hunt, Germán Toro Ghio, Schalk Cloete, and Dan Yurman for their exemplary demonstration of expertise. - Matt Chester, Energy Central

Gratitude is a vital aspect of our existence...

In a rapidly changing world rocked by uncertainty and relentless inflation, the very essence of blogging is being tested like never before. Every piece of content we create now faces unprecedented challenges. To safeguard the integrity and quality you expect, we’ve invested heavily—premium software, indispensable licenses, and breathtaking, high-quality copyrighted images—all crucial pieces in the puzzle.

But fear not—we're not on this turbulent journey alone! Your support has become our greatest ally. Just last week, thanks to Musk's changes, every single like, retweet, and share your offer on "X" transformed into a powerful act of solidarity—completely free, totally private, and profoundly impactful. Your gestures of support aren’t merely appreciated; they truly shape the future of our work!

If you're inspired to amplify your impact further, consider supporting us directly through PayPal at gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com or via our IBAN: SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611. Alternatively, use Stripe through our dedicated donation link, you can quickly and securely contribute. Every contribution—big or small—echoes loudly, enabling us to reach new heights.

We are endlessly grateful to have you with us on this incredible journey. Your generosity is more than support; it’s the lifeblood that fuels our dreams and empowers our mission. Thank you for standing with us—you truly make all the difference!

https://x.com/Germantoroghio/status/1909010177900106177

**You can't possibly deny me...**

**Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…**

Donate

Musk Calls for a Zero-Tariff Trade Zone Between Europe and the U.S.

¨Musk had voiced support for eliminating tariffs between the United States and Britain. But his recent comments signal a broader ambition to extend such trade policies to Europe...

NYT Published April 5, 2025 | Updated April 6, 2025, 5:39 a.m. ET
By Emma Bubola

Just three days after President Trump announced sweeping tariffs—including a 20 percent levy on goods from the European Union—Elon Musk expressed his hope that Europe and the United States would eventually shift to a “zero-tariff situation,” effectively forming a free-trade zone.

During a videoconference with Italy’s far-right League party in Florence, Musk outlined his vision for a closely integrated transatlantic relationship. His remarks departed from his recent silence regarding Trump’s protectionist tariff policies.

Earlier on Saturday, Musk had publicly lambasted Peter Navarro, a leading trade adviser in the Trump administration. In response to an X post praising Navarro, Musk dismissed Navarro’s Ivy League credentials as irrelevant. It criticized him for lacking a “builder’s” track record—emphasizing that tangible achievement matters more than academic accolades.

At the conference, Musk stressed the need for a stronger transatlantic partnership, remarking that he would welcome “more freedom of people to move between Europe and North America.” This stance contrasts sharply with the prevailing attitudes among Trump administration officials, as well as President Trump’s own earlier comments, in which he claimed the European Union was designed to “screw” America.

During Trump’s first term, Musk had voiced support for eliminating tariffs between the United States and Britain. But his recent comments signal a broader ambition to extend such trade policies to Europe.

Musk’s appearance with the League party was not his first foray into European political debates. Over recent months, he has increasingly lent his influential voice to far-right movements across the continent. Last Friday, both Musk and Trump expressed support for Marine Le Pen, the embattled French far-right leader recently convicted on embezzlement charges and barred from running for public office. Earlier this year, Musk endorsed Germany’s Alternative for Germany party and weighed in on Italy’s immigration debate—a move that had drawn sharp criticism from Italy’s president.

At Saturday’s event alongside League leader Matteo Salvini, Musk not only reiterated his zero-tariff vision but also promoted the initiatives of his cost-cutting Department of Government Efficiency, supported Trump’s stance on the Ukraine conflict, and condemned what he described as the European Union's stifling overregulation.

This revised version aims to present the information clearly and structurefully while highlighting the key points of Musk’s remarks and his broader political involvement.

Germán & Co

Control Illusions and the Era of Multipolar Geopolitics and the War of Gas…

-21-

¨The dominance of natural gas sparks a global trade war...

¨Fossil Fuels, False Narratives, and Forgotten Lessons…

¨From Moët Chandon to Cold Hard Steel: Toasting the Global Trade Tax Hangover…

¨Tiny Lands Versus Giant Egos…

¨Global Energy News Update – April 6, 2025…

¨A dangerous ilusions…

¨The Energy Gambit: From Nuclear Dreams to Gas Leverage…

Musk broke the mirror of madness…

-21-

"These additions never appeared in the original edition of Bierce. I, the Dictionary, am nourished by the ironies and madness of each era. Whoever leafs through these pages should do so with caution: cynicism never dies; it merely adopts new masks."

"Disinformation: A set of lies, half-truths, and manipulated data that, when dispersed with cunning, are capable of shaping perceptions, undermining wills, and aiding despots.

“Cynicism never dies; it transmutes as soon as it finds a new channel to propagate."

The dominance of natural gas sparks a global trade war...

“False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil.” —Socrates

Fidel Castro’s Letter to Nikita Khrushchev

RAND Repport 2019

¨The question naturally arises: Did the strategic framework enumerated by RAND shape the West’s response to the Ukraine war, or even precipitate Russian fears that led to the invasion?

Ukraine is a bitter slice of cheese, caught between two superpowers

“Axis of Evil”

¨That day, many millions wondered and tried to get an explanation about the close ties between President Trump and Putin...

Broader Political Context

Nature and Origin of the “Hidden” Image

Claims Made in the Article

Political Implications

Trust in a Divided World: The Second Trump Administration and Its Impact on Democracy and Diplomacy

The Return to the White House: Trump’s Second-Term Team

A Bold Gambit: Slashing Oil Prices to “End” the Ukraine War

“I’m calling on OPEC to bring the price down,” Trump declared.

“The moment Russia can’t fund its war, that war ends.”

However, the gambit has drawn skepticism from both energy-sector experts and international allies

The Trust Deficit: A Historical Backdrop

Unpredictability vs. Credibility: The Hallmarks of Trump’s Style

Allies’ Reactions in 2025: Cautious, Polite, and Wary

Russia’s Response: A Study in Opportunism

The Broader Context: Trust in a “Post-Truth” Era

Repairing the Breach: Can Trust Be Restored?

Conclusion: The High Price of Distrust

From Moët Chandon to Cold Hard Steel: Toasting the Global Trade Tax Hangover…

Tiny Lands Versus Giant Egos

China Relations and the Formosa (Taiwan) Question

Grenada 1983 - Greenland???

Historical Background: U.S.–Panama Canal Relations…

Global Energy News Update – April 6, 2025

Major Headlines and Summaries

What to Watch (April 2025 and Beyond)

Brief Analysis

Key Quotes

What to Watch (April 2025 and Beyond)

You can't possibly deny me...

¨Fossil Fuels, False Narratives, and Forgotten Lessons…

The Unlearned Lessons of Oil Shocks

How the Oil Crises of the 1970s Sparked a Global Shift in Electricity Generation:

A Retreat from Clean Energy Progress

Disinformation: The Fossil Fuel Industry’s Propaganda War

The collective amnesia about the oil shocks…

Conclusion: Remembering the Past, Protecting the Future

A dangerous ilusions…

Explore:

The Energy Gambit: From Nuclear Dreams to Gas Leverage…

Technocratic Authoritarianism: A New Face of Eugenics?

Eugenics Past: From Pseudoscience to Policy

Technocracy and the Temptation of Social Engineering

China: “Upgrading Population Quality” Through Data and Discipline

Conclusion: Resisting the New Eugenics

Gratitude is a vital aspect of our existence...

You can't possibly deny me...

Musk Calls for a Zero-Tariff Trade Zone Between Europe and the U.S.

¨Musk had voiced support for eliminating tariffs between the United States and Britain. But his recent comments signal a broader ambition to extend such trade policies to Europe...

The Fall of a Giant: Northvolt, Europe’s Battery Dream Derailed…