Tag Archives: Tom O'Donnell interview

I told Sky: AfD economics, like other German parties’, is about nostalgia, not modernization & reindustrialization

The far-right AfD (Alternativ für Deutschland) won a sweeping election victory in the German state of Saxony-Anhalt last Sunday. I addressed the implications of and motivations for the AfD’s economic program.

In the interview, we spoke mostly about macroeconomic policies of the AfD, and its anti-immigrant social policies. However, the AfD seems to not have a fundamentally different economic orientation from other German parties over the past couple decades. It too is backward looking, full of nostalgia for “what worked” previously in the post-War German economic model. However, it also prioritizes going back to when there were fewer immigrants in Germany.

My work on the German economic model, however, especially my teaching and talks, has focused on the failure of Germany to embrace the tech, social-cultural organization, and research imperatives of the Third Industrial Revolution, the Information Age.

Germany, and the EU as well, have long failed to catch up with the USA, or for that matter Asian allies Japan and South Korea, in information technologies and the modernization of work organization-and-culture within the spheres of production, communication, commerce, research, education and business. This would have required reforms fostering a risk-tolerant culture of innovation, personal initiative, flexibility and entrepreneurialism,  sweeping transformations away from the old, mid-20th-Century Fordist model “with German characteristics,” so to speak.

This strategy was both a theoretical and practical mistake – not because it addressed global warming, which indeed is a significant problem though, in my view, not the predominant global problem it is made to be in the last 15 years of German policy, but because it was offered as an alternative model of economic development to Europe embracing the “American” Information Revolution.

In reality, Europe had no option but to wholly embrace what it terms “digital technologies” and catch up to tje USA.

In addition to embracing its peculiar “green”, “clean” energy path to reindustrialization, the other German strategy, in parallel, was to double down on improving its renowned 1960-1980’s electro-mechanical technologies, which are typical of the previous Second Industrial Revolution, and massively export these into the Chinese market.

Nevertheless, Gerany did have a plan to move, at some point, beyond this hold-over tech. The strategy was to bank on development of “green” or, more recently, “clean” technologies.

It was widely claimed, for about 20 years (influenced by futurist green-energy theorists like US physicist Amory Lovens, that Europe could “spark a Fourth Industrial Revolution” by carrying out a “green energy transition” based on developing and deploying a “totally new” energy system” using only renewable sources such as windmills and solar panels along with all their required grid-expansion, -connection and energy storage technologies.

Continue reading

My Jerusalem Post interview: “Iran’s Strait of Hormuz trump card is losing strategic value, expert tells ‘Post'”

Yesterday, I had a long talk with ‘Post’ Mideast reporter Danielle Greyman-Kennard. My thanks to her. – Tom O’D.

Although 14 to 15 million barrels of oil passed through Hormuz per day before the war, an expert told the Post that it was entirely possible to manage without much of that supply.

27 Aug. 2026, updated 28 Aug. – Though the Islamic Republic of Iran has established a “sophisticated panoply” to protect itself against the possibility of regime change, its trump card, the Strait of Hormuz, is losing its strategic value and will continue to do so, former Wilson Center global fellow Thomas O’Donnell told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday. (Continue reading at GlobalBarrel.com or at Jerusalem Post here)

Lightning occurs when META 4, an Oil Products Tanker, sails into Muscat Anchorage on March 21, 2026 at Sultan Qaboos Port in Muscat, Oman.President Donald Trump had threatened to attack Iran’s energy infrastructure if it did not end its de facto blockade of the Strait of Hormuz by March 23.(photo credit: Elke Scholiers/Getty Images)

With many of the regime’s regional proxies degraded over years of war with Israel and its nuclear ambitions delayed after the 12 Day War in June last year, Tehran only has its rockets, drones, and ability to threaten the Strait of Hormuz left as an insurance policy against attempts to topple the regime, he noted.

These remaining elements will be used to dissuade action while it restores the others, but they are losing the weight they once carried, O’Donnell added.

Though 14 to 15 million barrels of oil traveled through Hormuz per day before the war, he argued that it was very possible to manage without much of that supply.

Saudi Arabia’s East-West Crude Oil Pipeline moves around five million barrels per day for non-domestic use, while the United Arab Emirates moves an average of 1.5 to 1.8m. bpd through its own pipeline, he calculated.

Some 400m. barrels of oil and refined petroleum products were unanimously approved for release by the 32 member nations of the International Energy Agency (IEA), while the US government committed 172 million barrels from its Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Oil tanker HELGA is moored at one of Iraq’s southern offshore oil terminals near Basra as it prepares to load crude oil, becoming the second vessel to arrive since the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, April 24, 2026. (credit: REUTERS/Mohammed Aty/File Photo)

None of this even touches on the oil supplied by the Western Hemisphere, where roughly 32% to 40% of the world’s total oil originates.

“There’s more production in other places, but [the disruption of] oil has not been anything like it would have been 20 years ago if they closed the strait,” he said, explaining how the US’s own oil and fracking industries have helped mitigate much of the damage.

Could Iran’s weakening control of Hormuz force a deal with the US?

“The oil price, it’ll go up and down. The fact that it went over $100 [a barrel], and the next day it was $80, that means that’s geostrategic variability. That’s not fundamental.”

Continue reading

I told Kyiv Kanal24 – Heavier missiles needed to kill Russian oil sector. – Putin fights on like LBJ & Nixon did in Vietnam, & for the same reason

Maxym Krapivnyy, host at Ukraine’s Kanal24 in Kyiv, spoke with me recently while I was in the USA about: Ukraine’s drone war vs. Russian energy, Russia’s economy, and the USA’s expanding energy war targeting Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and India’s Russian oil imports. I explained that soon, the late-Lindsey Graham’s (R, S.C.) and Richard Blumenthal’s (D., Conn.) “draconian” secondary sanctions bill is expected to be signed by Trump, blocking most Russian oil exports. (Note: the Senate yesterday voted 86-12, to advance the bill. See Blumenthal, here.)

However, Maxym also then asked my view on the likeliness of Putin soon agreeing to serious peace talks. I said I expected Russia would be unwilling to soon end the war even if its forces were pushed back to the Russian border. Why? To admit defeat would devastate Russian credibility as a Great Power in Eurasia and beyond. (See below for a comparison to the USA in Vietnam.)

On the energy war, I stressed that Russia is well known to be a petrostate. Russia’s wealth and capacity to finance aggression abroad overwhelmingly depends on its oil export revenues. Russia’s continued existence as a-petrostate is what the ongoing Ukrainian and USA energy offensives are targeting, on two main fronts.

There are two sides to this energy war. One is the Ukrainian’s kinetic war against Russia’s domestic refineries, the other is the USA and allies’ global sanctions offensive. Both aspects are evolving in breath and complexity:

  • First, there is the Ukrainian drone and missile campaign, including deep strikes against domestic Russian oil refineries and infrastructure. This has been gaining in success. I pointed out that these attacks have to, however, increase still more, requiting heavier missiles to close refineries and oil export terminal ports for sufficient time to render repairs unprofitable. However, Ukraine is now testing and has begun to produce such heavier weapons, which should be available in the short-to-medium term. We discussed Russia’s refined product supply problems, and what Ukraine must yet accomplish.
  • Second, oil which increasingly cannot be refined is pouring into Russian export terminals, its big Baltic and Black Sea oil ports. This was already the situation before the Iran war began on February 28. At that time, oil that could not be refined due to drone attacks was being loaded on ships for export. However, with USA sanctions having been intensified, many of these ships had no customers, it had nowhere to go. During the initial phase of the Iran war, the USA allowed India and other allies to purchase this oil (i.e., it unsanctioned oil already loaded on ships without any clear destination) to avert it going to China. This accumulation is apparently again building up, for the same reasons.

the USA now maintains sanctions against Russian oil firms Rosneft and Lukoil, and is working to supply India with non-Russian oil to end its Russian oil purchases, making it harder for Russia to find export markets besides China. However, the reclosing of Hormuz will of course make this somewhat easier for Russia to find buyers.

Continue reading

My Kanal24 Kyiv: 1) Ukraine’s deep-strike drones. 2) G7’s push v. Russian oil. 3) USA-Iran: Who won? (& a written comment)

I spoke with Kyiv Kanal24’s Nataly Lutsenko on three issues. Jump to a topic here: 1) Ukrainian drones in Russia 00:00:19   2) G7 push v Russian oil. 00:05:25   3) Who won the US-Iran war? 00:10:27   Recorded 18 June 2026.

Note on number 3: I said it is not yet clear who won the US-Iran war. This has to do with military capacities which the USA (and its allies) could bring to bear but are now deeply reluctant or unwilling to bring to bear.

If Iran is unwilling to compromise or, worse, plays games, as it has already in the past few days with its “Persian Gulf Strait Authority,” the USA might decide it is constrained to employ whatever means necessary (Carter Doctrine) to end the Islamic Republic’s capacity to restrict the free flow of energy from the Gulf.

Trump and USA officials understand that a full-on military option is not an optimal resolution. This led them to accept an MoU that is quite conciliatory to Tehran in order to get the Straight reopened, and also apparently in response to many of its Gulf allies unwillingness to absorb the punishment Iranian missiles and drones would inflict before the Straight is forcibly reopened and Iran’s missile capacities are eventually suppressed. The administration knows that a massive bombing campaign of the entire country’s military-industrial and civilian infrastructure, plus an occupation of the Iranian coast along the Straight could likely achieved their aims of removing the Straight from Iranian hegemony. However, this in turn, is likely to require a protracted force commitment to contain whatever regime forces remain active. No matter how minor, remaining missiles and drones, proxy forces and terrorist capacities could require a long time to resolve.

Continue reading

Trump’s Iran Talks & Oil Supply: Experts Rühl, Kemp & I Analyze

To watch at Bloomberg, click this URL

Both Christof Rühl (bio) and Jack Kemp (bio) had great, data-driven media this past week. I too addressed these issues (spoiler: I assess Trump is not bluffing on Iran talks, and oil supply remains adequate.) My conflict-trajectory take differs a bit from Chrisof, perhaps closer to Jack K here.. My Al Jazeera was just after Trump announced talks.

Jack Kemp with facts on oil supply vs. information one finds in the media.

I agreed with IEA’s Fatih Birol and DoE’s Chris Wright: There’s plenty of oil now. So, G7 tapping the SPR’s is “premature”. — Indeed, the US soon dropped the idea! [on TRT, London]

I was a bit insistent that the spike during the day today, to over $100 at some point, was overblown.

As I mentioned, Fatih Birol at IEA (I forgot to mention also Chris Wright, USA Secretary of Energy),who had said the same thing, insisting last Friday that there is plenty of oil in the market. (See Wright and Bloomberg’s Steven Stapczynski elaborate here). That is NOT a problem now.

And, in the interview, I detailed some facts about this (e.g., before the war started nine days ago, there were about 1.4 billion(!) barrels floating on the water, an unprecedented amount, and the Russians had nowhere to put their unsellable oil).

So, It turns out that late Monday evening news (EST USA time), the news coming from the USA vindicates my suspicions. For now, there is no plan by the administration to release SPR reserves into the market.

Notice what I explained about this likely being a short-lived boost for Russian oil That is, after the Venezuelan campaign, if the Trump admin. Iran campaign works, both China and Russia will be in a very restricted position in the now-USA tightly controlled international oil market supply chain.

Here is the WSJ saying the prices of oil dropped quite a bit, and the stock market rebounded as well by the end of the day. Following that is a Bloomberg take too.

Continue reading

With Iran & Hormuz, the US would act as arbiter of China’s Gulf oil & LNG access, while ensuring access for Indo-Asian allies. Venezuelan oil growth will enable Trump to impose phased cuts of Russian exports, after the Iran war. [Kanal24, Kyiv]

This is a longish, ca. 30 minute video. Host Nataly Lutsenko kindly told me she wanted to make a long interview.

(During time of crisis like this, I have so many TV and press interviews that I don’t have time to put most of them online. So, I will refrain from writing long posts to accompany videos to get more online, if I think they are useful interviews. – Tom O’D)

My ntv.de| So schwer ist es, Venezuelas Ölinfrastruktur zu retten| How hard is it to restore Venezuela’s oil infrastructure

Investitionswillige Unternehmen stehen in Venezuela vor großen Hürden: Sicherheitsrisiken, eine verfallene Infrastruktur, ungeklärte Rechtsfragen zum US-Einsatz und die Gefahr langfristiger politischer Unruhen. (Foto: IMAGO/IlluPics)

Trumps Plan klingt ambitioniert: US-Ölkonzerne sollen nach Venezuela zurückkehren und Milliarden in die stark beschädigte Infrastruktur investieren. Im Interview erklärt Energiestratege Thomas O’Donnell, wie schnell das Land nach Jahren politischer und wirtschaftlicher Krise wieder zu alter Stärke finden kann.

ntv.de: Trumps Versprechen klingt vollmundig: US-Ölkonzerne sollen nach dem Angriff auf Venezuela ins Land zurückkehren und Milliarden von Dollar investieren, die stark beschädigte Ölinfrastruktur reparieren und damit beginnen, Geld zu verdienen. Wird dieser Plan aufgehen?

Continue reading

I was interviewed 05 Jan. by Juliane Kipper, Business Editor at Germany’s ntv.de, for this print article. Lies es Auf DeutschRead In English (from Google Translate). Or, read at ntv.de.

Investitionswillige Unternehmen stehen in Venezuela vor großen Hürden: Sicherheitsrisiken, eine verfallene Infrastruktur, ungeklärte Rechtsfragen zum US-Einsatz und die Gefahr langfristiger politischer Unruhen. (Foto: IMAGO/IlluPics)

Trumps Plan klingt ambitioniert: US-Ölkonzerne sollen nach Venezuela zurückkehren und Milliarden in die stark beschädigte Infrastruktur investieren. Im Interview erklärt Energiestratege Thomas O’Donnell, wie schnell das Land nach Jahren politischer und wirtschaftlicher Krise wieder zu alter Stärke finden kann.

ntv.de: Trumps Versprechen klingt vollmundig: US-Ölkonzerne sollen nach dem Angriff auf Venezuela ins Land zurückkehren und Milliarden von Dollar investieren, die stark beschädigte Ölinfrastruktur reparieren und damit beginnen, Geld zu verdienen. Wird dieser Plan aufgehen?

Continue reading

My bTV| On the Trump administration’s Venezuela logic: drugs, migration & oil (partly vs Russia). Both Maduro’s regime & Machado’s opposition sit & wait.

I was interviewed by David Karalvanov at bTV (Bulgaria) on the US-Venezuela confrontation under Trump and Maduro (01Dec). David used excerpts for a documentary and kindly gave me the full video here. An outline of the five questions and answers is below here.

Three Asides:

  1. I recall vividly how Trump and co., in his first term, easily misled a naively dependent Venezuelan opposition into believing that the USA was planning to forcibly remove Maduro. In turn, the opposition convinced the country’s population that the USA was preparing to forcibly liberate them. This belief was deeply corrosive to advancing any self-reliant domestic anti-Maduro pro-democracy movement. In the end, the Trump administration tried a poorly prepared putsch. John Bolton, Trump’s then-National Security Advisor, the organizer, was embarrassingly gamed by the Venezuelan regime’s intelligence police. Meanwhile, the present Venezuelan opposition has long been unwilling to organize or endorse any popular movement to forcibly restore democracy from below.
  2. In a recent CNN interview I spoke about Trump rationales for the present confrontation. See: “Why Trump wants a Venezuelan oil boom …“) and dangers of not preparing for the day-after possibilities of chaotic events, terrorism or resistance by armed pro-Chavista military or collectivo groups, and/or x-Colombian guerilla groups long active in the country.
  3. I’ve written for 20 years on Venezuela, Chavismo and oil, including two years as visiting professor, Universidad Central de Venezuela’s UCV/CENDES, Caracas.–I’m happy to speak or consult on Ven.-US-China-Russia-Iran-Colombian-EU-… and/or Ven. domestic matters in English or Spanish.- Tom O’D

David’s five questions and some of my answers:

Continue reading

My CNN live: Why Trump wants a Venezuelan oil boom | Venezuelans, living in misery, just want Maduro gone; eight million have fled.

I was interviewed on CNN International’s “Newsroom” with host Kim Brunhuber – live, Friday, 12 Dec. 2025. The transcript is below. Kim asked about Venezuela’s oil industry, the impact of sanctions, what stricter enforcement could do to the Venezuelan economy, and what the US stands to gain if it ultimately gains greater access to the country’s oil reserves? He also wanted to know what Venezuelans are saying. / CNN says: “The show is broadcast around the world on CNN International, and in the US on our new platform All Access.”

Transcript:

0:01 I want to bring in Thomas O’Donnell, an

0:03 energy and geopolitics strategist at

0:05 GlobalBarrel.com. He’s also a former

0:07 visiting professor at the Central

0:09 University of Venezuela and he joins us

0:11 from Berlin. Thank you so much for being

0:13 here with us. Uh so this seizure, a

0:16 clear escalation here. Uh the White

0:19 House says more tanker seizures could be

0:22 coming. If that happens, I mean, what

0:23 would that do to the Venezuelan economy?

0:28 Well, there’s there’s two aspects here.

Continue reading

The US & Ukraine pound Russian oil | my Kanal24, Kyiv

On 5 November, I told Kanal24, Kyiv that a US-Ukraine campaign to disable the Russian petrostate’s oil sector is underway. I stressed that this is a multi-spectral campaign combining (i) severe USA sanctions and secondary tariffs on Russian oil exports in parallel with (ii) Ukrainian military action on oil refineries and export-terminal ports. These attacks are known to be conducted and planned in close cooperation with USA military intelligence (FT,12 Oct.).

This means that an assessment of either aspect of this campaign on its own is inadequate. The synergy of sanctions plus military hits is the issue.

Secondary Sanctions. It has been widely recognized that the USA would need to, as promised, vigorously impose secondary tariffs on any entities that violated its recent tariff announcement. Indeed, on Sunday, President Trump lent support to a bill being drafted in Congress to hit any entity “doing business with Russia.”, not only buying its oil (i.e., “Trump says Republicans drafting bill to sanction countries that trade with Russia, Reuters. November 17). This sounds similar to the Senators Lindsey Graham (R, SC) and Richard Blumenthal’s (D Conn) so-called “bone-crushing sanctions” bill (Politico, 7 June) endorsed by 83 senators on 3 June.

The apparent aim of the port drone and missile attacks is to slash oil exports from Russia’s three or four biggest westward facing terminals. The focus thus far is on Black Sea terminals:

Continue reading

My TRT-London | With air defenses & proxies decimated, USA-Israel can bomb Iran at will, killing nuclear & missile programs, and its negotiating hand | Trump, Gulf eye Abraham Accords era

MY COMMENTS: 1) USA long-planned surprise strategy 2) Iran leaders’ 20-year nukes brinkmanship strategy aimed for USA ssecurity-guarantee deal
ALL GUESTS – TRT-London, USA bombing

I was invited on TRT-World, London, 24 June, for a panel after US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites (see the panelist lineup below. I answered two questions at some length – see the 2nd video.)

In summary: Trump claims USA Operation Midnight Hammer “obliterated” the country’s nuclear capacity, but how much have they really been degraded?

My analysis is that it does not matter. If the USA decides to bomb again at will, without Iran having air defenses the USA and Israel can destroy or disrupt most any renewed Iranian work on its nuclear or conventional missile program. If, as he stated, repeat bombings as needed are Trump’s intention, then this should be the case. This now leaves Iran very little negotiating leverage. The regional proxies it always intended to use for retaliation in just such a scenario have been decimated by Israel.

Therefore, there is a high likelihood Iran will be forced by Trump to negotiate from a now much weaker position. If Tehran resists, it could fall back to rely on state-sponsored terrorist methods, which are of limited usefulness for maintaining a modern functioning state and economy.

Overall, I emphasize that this “12 Day War” has been especially motivated, by Trump, to assure USA Gulf allies that they can now safely enter into the Abraham Accords with Israel and the USA, establishing a new regional security structure. Trump will be constrained to do whatever is necessary, militarily and in negotiations, to insure the Iranian threat these allies have felt acutely remains under control. In turn, if these accords, which Trump’s chief negotiator, Steve Witkoff, was reportedly already working on among the USA’s Gulf Arab allies immediately after the USA bombing is intended to allow the USA to move on, focusing more squarely on Great Power competition elsewhere.

This is my general assessment. There are many details and some possible derailments here, of course. – Tom O’D.

Continue reading

My NATO ARW talk in Montenegro: The Green Deal’s infrastructure model caused the 2025 gas crisis

10-12 February, I was invited to contribute to the NATO Advanced Research Workshop (ARW) on critical European infrastructure, organized in Podgorica by the Atlantic Council of Montenegro, a NATO member, and The International Society for Risk Management (ISRM), Serbia, a non-NATO member. This partnership plus experts from neighboring states made the workshop on risks to regional and West Balkan infrastructure very informative. I felt quite honored, as a regional outsider, an American working on EU energy and geosecurity (based in Berlin), to be invited. Conference FB link

I planned to discuss drivers of EU deindustrialization, but decided to focus on one sharp example: how tech failures in the EU’s energy-infrastructure model, the Green Deal, is causing the unexpected 2025 EU natural gas crisis. This comes while gas prices were still high and supply still problematic from the 2022-23 Energy War – caused by Russia maliciously stopping Nord Stream pipeline flows. This new hit to European competitiveness and security was, however, an eminently avoidable “own goal.” (The workshop discussion is off the record, but I may post my own talk.)

How has the Green Deal model caused another gas crisis?

The EU Green Deal model requires installation of high percentages of wind and solar renewables. However, to supply energy reliably, installation of wind and solar renewable (RE) technology must be paired with installation of sufficient universal, long-term, grid-scale storage (ULTGSS) technology. The idea is excess electricity generated on very sunny, windy and mild days should be stored to compensate supply on dark, calm and cold days. (Let’s put aside, for now, expert debunking of this RE-plus-storage model using weather and tech data.) Over-installation of solar and wind beyond what can be backed up by some other source, is a critical vulnerability to energy infrastructure reliability during periods of cloudy, calm and cold weather. This is called “Dunkelflaute” in German.

However, the reality is that, after some four decades of storage-tech R&D, such a technology still does not exist. There is no lack of studies and data on this. However, EU members remain mandated by the Green Deal and ancillary EU and/or national laws to continue installing ever higher percentages of renewable generation.

As a result, Dunkelflaute conditions in late-November and early December 2024, and again in February 2025 across northern Europe led to prolonged periods of plunging RE generation. Without the aforementioned ULTGSS backup (my acronym), the “de facto ULTGSS” has primarily been natural-gas-fueled generation, plus importing of nuclear, hydro and coal generation from neighboring countries having excess capacity in these.

My talk was an analysis the root cause for another EU natural gas crisis this winter. I explained that the EU’s initial win in the energy war imposed on it by Putin, overcoming the initial, acute crisis of 2022, is nevertheless evolving dangerously into a Pyrrhic victory – into a defeat. This is because EU energy policy, the Green Deal, has critical technological failings, and the present EU Commission leadership refuses to reform it, rejects any serious criticism of the model, and is instead doubling down on an all-renewables system ASAP. In fact, it is assumed that Van der Leyen will announce, late in February, adoption of a new, more “ambitious” target of 90% net-zero emissions by 2040 relative to 1990. (GlobalBarrel.com readers might recall I termed this as “fantasy” in Op-Eds last year in the Polish daily press and elsewhere.)

A Green Deal reform, based on science, is not inherently “right”, “center” or “left”

I explained why a radical reform of this Green Deal model should not be a matter of political philosophy, rather ait requires only an honest recognition that the tech simply does not exist for this scale of installations. Refusal to reform is no longer only anti-science Green populism. After ca. 15 years of this Green Model’s hegemony in various member states, then in Brussels, ALL PARTIES are beset with ideological-scientific confusion and need a certain fresh start, a reeducation or green-energy deprogramming. In particular, center-right parties, such as the CDU in Germany, are typically confused in that they tend to see the entire problem as one of the methods of financing the Green Deal (and the German Energiewende, which provided the model the Green Deal is based on). They focus on having less government mandates, less subsidies, more public financing, and a more liberal, interconnected electricity market in Europe. All well and fine. However, if one is talking about alchemy, funding the transmutation of lead into gold, then it matters little how efficiently it is financed, and how liberal is the market model. In this case, the problem is that a highly RE based model (much less the German, Spanish, Austrian, etc. model of 100% renewables), lacking any universally applicable, long-term, grid-scale storage, is simply energy-infrastructure “alchemy”. It is simply impossible without an entire parallel natural gas system on standby awaiting any instance of Dunkelfloute. This is a disaster, an impossibly complex and expensive model that guarantees ever deeper EU deindustrialization.

Even the farthest right and left parties are hesitant to embrace a fundamentally different model of massive large-scale nuclear as the basis, with also extensive electricity-fueled mass transit build-outs as a clearly already-proven model. The alternative is further high energy prices, deindustrialization and undercutting of European security.

My BiznesAlert: German elites have no idea how to get out of the crisis / Ekspert dla Biznes Alert: niemieckie elity nie mają pomysłu na wyjście zkryzysu

Last night, leaving the Polish Sejm, after a long discussion, invited by a leader.

URL CORRECTIONS: ENGLISH Biznes Interview LINK & POLISH Biznes Interview LINK

[Warsaw, 21 Nov] Here’s my interview with BiznesAlert’s Artur Ciechanowicz (in EN & Pl) on Germany’s energy, industrial and political crises. I spoke here in Warsaw Monday at the CEE Energy Security Conference, attended Wednesday’s 25 Years of NATO Membership conference, and was invited yesterday evening, by a leader of the Sejm (parliament) for a long talk in his offices, joined by Mark Voyger (American University Kyiv and former-NATO). More soon. Tom O’D.

Continue reading

My PAP, Poland: “Expert: EC recommendation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2040 is fantasy” / “Ekspert: zalecenie KE redukcji emisji gazów cieplarnianych o 90% do 2040 roku to fantastyka”

I’ve been thinking about what to say on Monday in Warsaw: at the “Energy Security in Central & Eastern Europe” conference. As soon as I saw the title of my panel: “Does EU Climate Policy Need Evolution or Revolution? What Should We Change in the European Green Deal?” I accepted! This question goes beyond politics – left, right or center – it is a pressing matter for European energy security

Then, I recalled my syndicated interview with Polish AP’s Arthur Ciechanowicz (Brussels) this February. It’s exactly what I should say in Warsaw (see below: LHS in EN, RHS in PL), especially given President Von der Leyen’s choices of long-time anti-nuclear politicians to be her top commissioners for climate and (re)industrialization (Teresa Ribera), and for energy (Dan Jørgensen). (**Details in footnotes). See what you think.

* Footnotes: References on new EU Commissioners’ anti-nuclear attitudes:

Continue reading