（社交媒體賬號@realDonaldTrump）

我在2024年5月的一篇文章中直截了當地闡述了歐洲的生存困境：要麼作為搖搖欲墜的跨大西洋帝國的“大陸尾巴”被淡忘，要麼披荊斬棘成為一體化歐亞經濟巨人的西部堡壘。

當時，烏克蘭衝突正酣，能源價格飛漲，歐洲自詡“文明花園”，深具道德優越感，卻對務實的需求視而不見。2026年1月，局勢已然改變，但核心挑戰仍未解決。烏克蘭戰爭還在持續，而隨着俄羅斯在庫皮揚斯克和波克羅夫斯克附近的推進，以及烏克蘭因為能源基礎設施受定點攻擊而停電，形勢已經明朗：由於西方的代理野心，這場衝突已經失敗。民意也印證了這一點，72%的烏克蘭人支持有安全保障的和平方案，66%的俄羅斯人支持談判。

我之前的文章實際上是敦促歐洲摒棄恐俄和恐華，以謙遜態度應對多極化的世界。如今，隨着“美國優先”讓美國的可靠性大打折扣，以及歐洲的能源脆弱性再次暴露，這一提議顯得更加迫切。美國2025年《國家安全戰略》要求歐洲在2027年前承擔北約常規防禦，削減與烏克蘭的情報共享，並優先考慮亞洲而不是大西洋。與此同時，歐洲過度依賴昂貴的美國液化天然氣，目前已佔進口量的55%以上，每年耗費數十億美元，這削弱了其產業競爭力，並將歐洲大陸鎖定在從屬地位。如果布魯塞爾缺乏大膽行動的勇氣，那麼西歐人民是否以及何時才會提出這樣的要求？一場瓦爾特·本雅明式的斷裂——歷史連續性出現救世主式中斷，幻想破碎，新的可能誕生——正在醞釀。斷裂雖未完全到來，但裂痕在擴大，從農民抗議到民粹主義抬頭，舊秩序搖搖欲墜。

本文是更新後的思考，探討了清晰的未來發展路徑，將能源主權與地緣政治重組交織。事實上，如果歐洲尋求未來，不做跨大西洋帝國的尾巴，就別無選擇，只能加快擺脫對化石天然氣的依賴，務實地與中國合作發展清潔技術，與俄羅斯實現關係正常化，擺脫美國的霸凌。新近簽署的南方共同市場協議保障了糧食安全，鞏固了這一基礎。歐洲的生存取決於魄力和意願。

能源陷阱：從俄羅斯天然氣到美國液化天然氣的束縛

2022年2月俄羅斯宣布“特別軍事行動”之前，廉價的管道天然氣為供暖和工業提供動力，支撐着歐洲的繁榮。此後，歐洲有意放棄從俄羅斯的進口，2026年底禁止進口液化天然氣，到2027年秋季逐步淘汰管道天然氣，這讓歐洲不得不轉而依賴更高價的美國液化天然氣。2025年，美國的供應占歐洲液化天然氣進口的55%-60%，成本是美國或中國的2倍到4倍。這對歐洲工業造成毀滅性打擊，但為華盛頓帶來地緣政治影響力。在現任政府領導下，美國不再將歐洲視為盟友，而更多將其視為液化天然氣出口和技術銷售的固定市場。貿易緊張局勢、關稅威脅以及《國家安全戰略》對跨大西洋關係的邊緣化都說明，華盛頓仗勢欺人，是因為它有能力這樣做。

然而，短期內天然氣需求居高不下。預測顯示，2025-2026年，歐盟範圍的天然氣需求將保持適度穩定或略有增長，約為3190億-3200億立方米。工業用電和天然氣價格持續高企，導致化工和鋼鐵等行業的去工業化，並可能傷害汽車行業。需求永久下降已成現實，產業遷移風險日益增加。2021年以來，“REPowerEU”計劃帶來的能效提升使需求下降20%，超過15%的自願目標，但冬季仍存在缺口，一次寒潮就可能帶來460億立方米的缺口。從需求效率角度看，2030年的預測較為樂觀：如果採取積極措施用清潔能源替代1000億-1500億立方米天然氣，那麼天然氣需求可能減半至1900億立方米。

但要實現這一目標，歐洲必須將主權置於短期顧慮之上。

液化天然氣多元化提供喘息空間，可將視線轉向卡塔爾（北方氣田擴建後將從2026年起增加產量）、阿爾及利亞（佔10%-15%的份額）、挪威（管道供應穩定在30%-50%）以及阿塞拜疆或澳大利亞等國。2026年全球液化天然氣供應增長7%-10%，或可使TTF天然氣價格降到每百萬英熱單位9-12美元，從而緩解價格壓力。這種過渡方案可以爭取時間，但並非終局。真正的主權意味着完全擺脫天然氣，或通過快速電氣化和需求側管理儘可能減少天然氣的使用。需求側管理可以提升一切，包括熱泵、改造和工業能效，每年節省數百億立方米，無需新增依賴。

能源主權之路：與中國建立務實夥伴關係

歐洲沒有餘力擔憂短期內對中國製造業的依賴，因為能源脆弱才是它的致命弱點。一旦解決，充足的低成本清潔能源將再次推動本土工業化。那麼，核心戰略的特徵是什麼？最重要的，是交通（電動車）和工業（電弧爐和熱泵）的電氣化迅速推進，將天然氣用量在2021年基礎上削減20%以上，並與“REPowerEU”提出的到2030年可再生能源佔比45%目標保持一致。

這需要大規模建設可再生能源，而中國佔據着主導地位，它擁有80%以上太陽能電池板、關鍵風力發電機份額，以及領先的電池儲能技術。歐盟進口激增，推動了太陽能和風能創紀錄的新增長。對中國電動車加征關稅並可能擴展至太陽能和電池領域，旨在保護本地製造商，但堅持所有產品都“歐洲製造”可能有延誤風險。“綠色協議產業計劃”和《凈零工業法案》提供了有利於歐盟組裝的補貼和採購規則，但規模化生產需要從中國進口，以保障成本和速度。用於提升工業韌性的微電網可以無縫集成中國儲能技術。

如果歐洲取消或降低能源技術和基礎設施進口關稅，中國可以通過向歐洲製造業提供大量投資來推動這一目標，如合資、辦廠或轉讓太陽能、電池、風能和儲能技術。這種交換能規避貿易摩擦，創造就業，並加深關係，就像中國對其他地區的投資一樣。更深層的合作夥伴關係將確保新的合作：模塊化核能（中國現役小型模塊化反應堆，如HTR-PM）、釷反應堆（TMSR項目）、聚變（ITER和本地托卡馬克）以及綠色氫氣（通過可再生能源/核電解）。2020年以來的五次中歐氣候對話提供了框架，將中國規模與歐洲專業知識相結合。對於鋼鐵和航運等難以電氣化的行業，這些技術提供了基礎負荷和清潔燃料，進一步取代天然氣。

加拿大近期的轉變樹立了政治勇敢的先例。在馬克·卡尼總理領導下，加拿大政府2026年1月中旬與北京簽署了一份廣泛的貿易協議，降低針對中國電動車的關稅（從100%分階段降至6.1%），以換取減少對油菜籽等加拿大出口產品的關稅壁壘（從84%降至15%）。在特朗普的關稅政策和威脅下，加拿大選擇與美國保持距離，這種“戰略自主”轉向實現了貿易多元化，降低了對美國的依賴，並修復了緊張的雙邊關係。儘管各方反應不一（保守黨人士認為此舉風險巨大），但它被譽為一項大膽舉措，卡尼認為這是構建“新世界秩序”的必要條件。歐洲可以效仿這一做法，吸引與關稅減免掛鉤的中國投資，在沒有無端恐懼的情況下加速轉型。

批評人士譴責“依賴”，但這其實是錯誤的恐華情緒，供應鏈風險（如稀土）可以通過多元化和激勵本土產能來管控。其回報，是電價通過超額建設和儲能得到控制，從而吸引產業迴流，並為歐盟製造業擴張提供資金。到2030年代初，這種良性循環將扭轉頹勢。

地緣政治重組：擺脫恐俄，彰顯自主

能源主權解鎖更大膽的地緣政治博弈。隨着天然氣需求減少，歐洲可以將俄羅斯視為鄰國而非妖魔。我早前克服恐俄情緒的呼籲，如今被領導人的轉變所認可：德國總理默茨稱俄羅斯為“歐洲國家”，並着眼於2027年前重新平衡雙邊關係；法國總統馬克龍表示，如果美國的努力受挫將推動“全面對話”；意大利總理梅洛尼宣稱“歐洲是時候與俄羅斯對話了”，甚至提議向普京派遣歐盟特使。克里姆林宮對這一“積極舉措”表示歡迎。

戰爭終局需要務實主義：將升級責任歸咎於美國（北約擴張觸及俄羅斯紅線），商談一個直接的和平解決方案，認真構建新的泛歐安全框架。拖延越久，條件可能越糟。公眾對此是支持的。目前進行的美烏會談（在邁阿密，也可能在達沃斯）不太可能取得任何實質性進展，但歐洲的獨立行動或許能打破僵局。

新安全架構意味着我們熟知的北約有可能瓦解。美國的不可靠性，包括撤軍信號以及將重心轉向亞洲，使得北約顯得過時。一個有魄力的歐洲會要求美國撤走其10萬餘駐軍，並相信在新的和平條約下歐洲有能力應對常規防禦。這將為美國的霸凌畫上句號。除了強迫歐洲購買液化天然氣和技術產品，美國在歐洲的未來中沒有真正的利害關係。

這種轉變需要謙遜，而在恐華問題上也需要謙遜。歐洲的未來需要與中國合作，摒棄偏執，並將歐洲與歐亞一體化進程鎖定。更廣泛的主權隨之而來： 2026年1月17日簽署的歐盟-南方共同市場協議取消了90%以上的關稅，每年可增加500億歐元出口，創造60萬個就業，並實現拉美食品和農產品進口的多元化。配額制度保護了歐盟農民，確保了韌性而又不至過度依賴。

本雅明式斷裂：民眾對勇氣的呼籲

布魯塞爾必須鼓起勇氣。如果不能，從巴黎街頭到柏林工廠，西歐民眾就必須發出這樣的呼聲。舊的幻想已經破滅，“花園”敘事掩蓋了衰落，對跨大西洋的忠誠帶來的是奴役。一場本雅明式斷裂正在醞釀，人們抗議高昂的能源成本、戰爭帶來的身心交瘁和精英脫離民眾。它還不是革命，但如果領導人猶豫不決，救世主式的火花就可能被點燃，那將是打斷歷史錯誤進程的辯證跨躍。

歐洲的道路很明確：藉助中國的技術和投資加速電氣化，以液化天然氣多元化為橋樑，務實謙遜地與俄羅斯接觸，放棄北約，轉而構建一個不可分割的泛歐安全架構，並維護糧食和能源的自主權。正如加拿大所展示的，大膽行動能夠重獲主權和繁榮前景，猶豫不決則註定淪為附庸。歐亞大陸的恢弘前景就在前方，問題是，歐洲會將自己錨定在其西部，還是會走向衰落？

(Social media @realDonaldTrump)

In May 2024, I penned an article that framed Europe's existential dilemma starkly: either fade into obscurity as the "continental tail-end” of a crumbling transatlantic empire, or forge a path as the western bulwark of an integrated Eurasian economic colossus.

Back then, the Ukraine conflict was raging, energy prices were skyrocketing, and Europe's self-proclaimed role as the “garden of civilization” – a pedestal of moral superiority – was blinding it to pragmatic necessities. Fast forward to January 2026, and the landscape has shifted, yet the core challenge remains unresolved. The war in Ukraine grinds on, but with Russian advances near Kupyansk and Pokrovsk, and Ukrainian blackouts from targeted strikes on energy infrastructure, the writing is on the wall: the conflict is effectively lost for the West's proxy ambitions. Popular sentiment echoes this – 72% of Ukrainians back peace plans with security guarantees, while 66% of Russians favour negotiations.

My earlier piece in effect urged Europe to shed its Russophobia and Sinophobia, embracing humility to navigate a multipolar world. Today, with US reliability in tatters under its “America First” pivot, and Europe's energy vulnerabilities exposed anew, that proposition feels more urgent. The US's 2025 National Security Strategy demands Europe shoulder NATO's conventional defense by 2027, slashes intelligence sharing with Ukraine, and prioritizes Asia over the Atlantic. Meanwhile, Europe's over-dependence on expensive US LNG – now over 55% of imports – drains billions, erodes industrial competitiveness, and locks the continent into a subservient role. If Brussels lacks the courage to act boldly, one wonders if and when the people of Western Europe will demand it. A Walter Benjamin-esque rupture – that messianic interruption in the continuum of history, shattering illusions and birthing new possibilities – is brewing. It's not fully here yet, but the cracks are widening: from farmer protests to rising populism, the old order teeters.

This updated reflection explores clear pathways forward, weaving energy sovereignty with geopolitical realignment. In truth, if Europe seeks a future as something other than the tail-end of a transatlantic empire, it has no choice but to accelerate its escape from fossil gas dependency, partner pragmatically with China for clean tech, normalize relations with Russia and assert independence from US bullying. Food security via the freshly inked Mercosur deal bolsters this foundation. Europe's survival presupposes a willingness and capacity for boldness

The Energy Trap: From Russian Gas to US LNG Shackles

Before February 2022, and Russia's declaration of the Special Military Operation, cheap pipeline gas fueled heating and industry, underpinning prosperity. Then, the deliberate eschewal of Russian imports – with LNG banned by end-2026 and pipelines phased out by autumn 2027 – has shifted reliance to pricier US LNG. In 2025, US supplies hit 55-60% of Europe's LNG imports, inflating costs 2-4 times higher than in the US or China. This has been devastating economically for European industry, but it has also delivered Washington geopolitical leverage. The US, under its current administration, views Europe less as an ally and more as a captive market for LNG exports and tech sales. Trade tensions, tariff threats, and the sidelining of transatlantic ties in the NSS confirm this: Washington bullies because it can.

Yet, gas demand remains stubbornly high in the short term – forecasts show modest stability or growth in 2025-2026, around 319-320 bcm EU-wide. Industrial electricity and gas prices linger at elevated levels, driving deindustrialization in sectors like chemicals and steel, and impairing the automotive sector. Permanent demand destruction is real, with relocation risks mounting. REPowerEU's efficiency gains have cut demand 20% since 2021, exceeding voluntary 15% targets, but winters expose gaps – a cold snap could create a 46 bcm shortfall. Projections for 2030 are optimistic from a demand efficiency point of view: demand potentially halving to 190 bcm if aggressive measures displace 100-150 bcm with clean energy.

But to achieve this, Europe must prioritize sovereignty over short-term scruples.

LNG diversification offers breathing room – shifting to Qatar (with North Field expansions adding volumes from 2026), Algeria (10-15% share), Norway (stable pipelines at 30-50%), and others like Azerbaijan or Australia. Global LNG supply growth of 7-10% in 2026 could keep TTF prices bearish at $9-12/MMBtu, easing pricing pressure. This bridge buys time, but it's no endgame. True sovereignty demands getting off gas altogether, or as much as possible, through rapid electrification and demand-side management (DSM). DSM – heat pumps, retrofits and industrial efficiencies – amplifies everything, saving tens of bcm annually without new dependencies.

Pathways to Energy Sovereignty: Pragmatic Partnerships with China

Europe doesn't have the luxury of fretting over short-term dependence on Chinese manufacturing when energy vulnerability is the real Achilles' heel. Once resolved, abundant low-cost clean energy will power domestic reindustrialization anyway. So, what are the features of the core strategy? Rapid ramp-up of electrification for transport (EVs) and industry (electric arc furnaces and heat pumps), slashing gas use by over 20% from 2021 levels and aligning with REPowerEU's 45% renewables target by 2030 are central.

This necessitates massive renewable build-out, and China dominates, with over 80% of solar panels, key wind turbine shares and battery storage leadership. EU imports have surged, fueling record solar and wind additions. Tariffs on Chinese EVs and potential extensions to solar/batteries aim to protect local makers, but insisting on “made in Europe” for everything risks delays. The Green Deal Industrial Plan and Net-Zero Industry Act offer subsidies and procurement rules favoring EU assembly, but scale demands Chinese imports for speed and cost. Microgrids for industrial resilience integrate Chinese storage seamlessly.

China could push this even harder by offering substantial investments in European manufacturing – joint ventures, factories or technology transfers for solar, batteries, wind and storage – if Europe removes or eases tariffs on energy tech and infrastructure imports. This quid pro quo would circumvent trade frictions, create jobs and deepen ties, much like China's outbound investments elsewhere. Deeper partnerships seal the deal: Collaborate on modular nuclear (China's operational SMRs like HTR-PM), thorium reactors (TMSR program), fusion (ITER ties and domestic tokamaks), and green hydrogen (via renewables/nuclear electrolysis). EU-China climate dialogues – five since 2020 – provide a framework, blending China's scale with Europe's expertise. For hard-to-electrify sectors like steel and shipping, these technologies provide baseload and clean fuels, displacing gas further.

Canada's recent shifts offer a precedent of political courage here. Under Prime Minister Mark Carney, Ottawa signed a wide-ranging trade deal with Beijing in mid-January 2026, slashing tariffs on Chinese EVs (from 100% to phased caps at 6.1%) in exchange for lower barriers on Canadian exports like canola (from 84% to 15%). This “strategic autonomy” pivot – breaking from US alignment amid Trump's tariffs and threats – diversifies trade, reduces US dependence, and rebuilds ties despite past tensions. Mixed reactions aside (Conservatives decry it as risky), it's hailed as a bold maneuver, with Carney framing it as essential for a “new world order.” Europe could emulate this by inviting Chinese investments tied to tariff relief, accelerating the transition without paranoia.

Critics decry “dependence,” but it's misplaced Sinophobia. Supply chain risks (e.g., rare earths) are manageable via diversification and incentives for homegrown capacity. The payoff? Electricity prices are brought back under control through overbuild and storage, attracting industries back and funding EU manufacturing ramp-ups. By the early 2030s, this virtuous cycle reverses decline.

Geopolitical Realignment: Shedding Russophobia, Asserting Autonomy

Energy sovereignty unlocks bolder geopolitics. With reduced gas needs, Europe can engage Russia as a neighbour, not a bogeyman. My earlier call to overcome Russophobia is vindicated by leaders' shifts: Germany's Friedrich Merz labels Russia a “European country” and eyes rebalanced ties by 2027; France's Emmanuel Macron pushes “fulsome dialogue” if US efforts falter; Italy's Giorgia Meloni declares “the time has come for Europe to talk to Russia,” even proposing an EU envoy to Putin. The Kremlin welcomes this “positive move.”

The war's endgame demands realism: blame the escalation on the US – NATO expansion crossed Russian red lines – and negotiate a direct peace settlement and engage seriously in a new pan-European security architecture. The longer the delay in doing so, the worse the terms are likely to get. Public support is there. Ongoing US-Ukraine talks (in Miami and possibly at Davos) are unlikely to make any meaningful headway, but Europe's independent track could break the impasse.

A new security architecture implies the tearing up of NATO as we know it. US unreliability – troop drawdowns signaled with signals pointing to a desire for increased focus on Asia – makes the alliance obsolete. A bold Europe would tell Washington to remove its 100,000+ troops believing that it can handle conventional defence in the context of a new peace treaty. This would draw a line under American bullying. The US has no real stake in Europe's future beyond compelling LNG and tech purchases.

This shift requires humility, which needs to extend to Sinophobia. A European future involves partnering with China without paranoia, anchoring Europe in Eurasian integration. Broader sovereignty follows – the EU-Mercosur deal, signed January 17, 2026, eliminates 90%+ tariffs, boosts exports by €50 billion annually, supports 600,000 jobs, and diversifies food/agri imports from Latin America. Quotas protect EU farmers, ensuring resilience without over-reliance.

The Benjamin Rupture: People's Demand for Courage

Brussels must muster the courage, but if not, Western Europe's people – from Paris streets to Berlin factories – need to demand it. The old illusions have been shattered. The “garden” narrative masks decline; transatlantic fealty brings servitude. A Benjamin rupture brews in protests against high energy costs, war fatigue and elite detachment. It's not revolution yet, but the messianic spark – that dialectical leap interrupting history's false progress – could ignite if leaders dither.

Europe's pathway is clear: Accelerate electrification with Chinese tech and investments, diversify LNG as a bridge, engage Russia practically and with humility, jettison NATO in favour of a pan-European indivisible security architecture, and assert food/energy autonomy. Boldness, as Canada demonstrates, reclaims sovereignty and the prospects of prosperity; hesitation condemns to vassalage. The Eurasian colossus awaits; the question is, will Europe anchor it to the west, or fade?