>>45249
>This didn't happen this year.
Maybe there was no change in 2021, I didn't check, but I remember that there's still in Germany a plan to wind down operation of the remaining nuclear plants (5 or 6, I think). So the process seems to be ongoing. (And with the new coalition govt including the "greens" it might just continue.) Anyway, even if they had dropped the eco-nonsense, the point is that some damage was already done: the replacement of power sources caused by the eco zealotry, contributes greatly to the inability to rapidly throttle up supply when demand increases, which causes shortages. You can throttle up under-demand coal- or nuclear-based power supply at-will, but not so wind, solar, or hydro power which depends on the mood of the climate

>In 2018 there were no coronavirus, and economic activity was better than today, and winter still happened.
Lol, you're being facetious. 2018 did not follow a massive halt of economic activity. Since mid-2021 things were re-starting, that's the point: it's the gradient that matters in this analysis, not the absolute volume.
Also each of the points I raised add up to a cumulative effect. Notice too that I did not say that gazprom played no part, I only said they were not the ones to blame which is the bandwagon the CNNs/BBCs/DWs/etc immediately jumped on

>Second one is Norway, but looks like they can't fill entire demand even if they'd want. So Russia may be not single source, but source with biggest influence. Promised LNG alternative still not happen.
LNG, being much more expensive, is hardly an alternative specially at a such times when prices jump world-wide. Regarding other providers, apart from relatively minor ones like Algeria/Qatar/USA, I remember that there is that Azerbaijan-EU gas project (TANAP and related lines) which is expected to grow imports to near Dutch level during the next 5 years. That might become important

>It depends on context, because some news reporting are ok even in very biased sources
Well, sure, on a case-by-case basis, indeed, even biased publications can produce OK articles. In general though, one needs to read from a variety of sources to fill in gaps and notice contrasts and contradictions. But I see that you know what I meant
>although they aren't that profitable. Gazprom sells gas into China at much less price
Interesting. IIUC this is a result of 2 things: the volume that they import and that a contract currently in force was signed at a time when Russia was in need to diversify partners, which gave them leverage
>looks like India is more US-oriented now.
I noticed some of this too. Some of it may be opportunism, since India and China are historically regional competitors/adversaries, now that US-China relations are at a low point, perhaps India might be looking to replace China as the cheap-labour for US capital.