This was clear from the very beginning, all analysts said that (including those from Kpler). Neither US exports nor EU demand can support the envisioned 750 billion over three years by any reasonably expected scenario.
During his first term as US president, Trump also made an energy deal with China that was similarly delusional. I don’t remember the numbers, but in the end China bought a small fraction of what was initially ‘agreed’ upon. Also back then, it was clear that China would never have the required demand to live up to the agreement. These things are more political theatre to celebrate a deal than anything else imo.
It was pretty well known that the deal would not happen as Trump imagined. However the EU is replacing Russian fossil fuels and some of that with US ones. So it was not obvious that we would see a decline for US fossil fuel revenues from the EU.
Yes, but we must also see that the volume of energy imports from the US is slightly higher in Q3/2025 compared to Q3/2024. The revenue decline is primarily due to a decrease in prices.
But I agree, it was clearly foreseeable from the very beginning. Here is a more comprehensive data if interested: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=EU_imports_of_energy_products_-_latest_developments
To paraphrase Machiavelli, if no one can tell you the truth, you are never safe from flattery. I don’t think that’s ever been more relevant than with Donald Daffodil. You tell him he’s a super genius who’s just won the biggest and most beautiful deal ever, and he’ll happily be distracted by the next thing.
And luckily for the EU, the current administration is so filled with incompetents, that it’s genuinely mitigating much of the damage they would otherwise have caused.
After concluding a trade agreement with Washington in August, the EU did increase the physical volumes of US liquefied natural gas it purchased. Falling oil and gas prices, however, meant that the total value of imports was lower than over the same period last year.
Jillian Boccara, a senior director at Kpler, said the non-binding nature of the trade agreement has had little impact on additional purchases of US commodities.
She noted that energy supply contracts are concluded on a bilateral basis and driven by economic considerations—including shipping costs and margins—rather than political statements. She also stressed that the announced volume of purchases is “unrealistic”.
Fingers were crossed.
Oh now Trump is gonna have a fit over at Truth Social and blurt out some nonsense
I thought he did that every day for no reason. I never read his stupidity, I just know it’s moronic and consistent
I think you forgot an in in front of consistent? Or do you mean that it’s consistently moronic?
I get what you mean … but what I meant was that his stupidity is consistently moronic
I think they meant the latter.
Edit: after giving it some thought…I suppose it could be both. XD
Early christmas gift - love to see it.
We’ll do it.
Eventually…
