Europe

The countries of northern Europe are full of offshore wind. So they’ve started to steal the wind from each other

by

The world has thrown itself into the arms of renewables to meet the goals of decarbonization. Each country is developing its strategy And, if in some the photovoltaic takes the lead, in others it is the wind that splits the cod. The problem is the commitments: fill the plate field implies that crops receive less sunlight. And fill the world with wind turbines – apart from visual impact, for fishing and for the birds-, is causing something as curious as it is problematic. Countries that are stealing the wind from their neighbors. Wake effect. When the wind hits the wind turbine bladesthese rotate, generating kinetic energy and electricity. The wind continues its path, but after passing through a wind turbine, it does so with less force. Multiply that by fields full of these mills and we have what is known as the ‘wake effect‘ or ‘wake effect’. This air that has already passed through a wind turbine station does so with a lower speed and greater turbulence. And if this is important, it is because the wind takes time to recover: the wakes can extend more than 100 kilometers after crossing a field of windmills. wind thieves. These facilities are usually far from each other to better take advantage of the currents, but if under certain circumstances they extend tens of kilometers, and up to the aforementioned hundred, imagine the consequences for the wind turbines that remain behind that installation that receives the first “hit” of wind. It is not an assumption: there is measurements by SAR satellite that confirm that, if a wind farm is built upwind of another, the wind speed it receives is 9% lower, causing it to have a reduction between 10% and 20% compared to that first installation. This is what is known as “wind theft,” a colloquial term for something that is easy to understand, but not so easy to fix. This GIF of The Telegraph illustrates it perfectly: Princess Elisabeth. As we read in BBCthe lawyer Eirik Finseras, specialized in offshore wind energy, “is a somewhat misleading term because you cannot steal something that you cannot own. Nobody owns the wind” – del Sol, yes, a Galician -. But of course, the fact that no one owns the wind does not exempt that park on the windward side from suffering the effects of the park built on the leeward side. In the North Sea, this is already becoming a problembecause the denser and larger the wind farm, the more intense the wake effect will be. Belgium is building Princess Elisabeth, a huge park that will add a whopping 3.5 GW of offshore wind capacity to the country’s accounts. It is a really huge offshore facilitybut although it will allow the addition of those 3.5 GW, it will also affect the existing Belgian parks due to a wake that will extend 55 kilometers beyond the installation. According to the accounts of the University of Leuven, the oldest Belgian facilities located to the east will experience: An 8.5% reduction in annual electricity production. Losses of up to 15% on very windy days. Impact. That in Belgian parks, but of course, it is also an international problem because the wind does not understand borders. By 2030, it is estimated that the current capacity of offshore wind energy in the North Sea will triple. This implies that thousands of turbines will be erected in a very short time with Belgium, Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands willing to obtain, in total, 65 GW of offshore wind energy. The problem is knowing what will happen to these trails, since it is estimated that the 1,400 MW installation in the Dutch area of Borssele will cause a reduction of 2.7% on average in some Belgian wind farms. It is a very clear case of how the Netherlands is “stealing” the wind from Belgium. It is logical to understand the interest in offshore wind Bigger blades. In a report by BBCPablo Ouro, a civil engineering researcher at the University of Manchester, points out that they have been seeing wake effects for years, but that “the problem is that, to achieve emissions neutrality, we will need to triple offshore wind capacity and some of these new turbines will operate very close to those already in operation. There will be more and more crowds and the wake effects will have a greater impact.” And it is no longer a question of the number of mills, but of their dimensions. In the North Sea we are seeing efforts to achieve both greater heights for the mills themselves (to take advantage of other currents that are not being taken advantage of right now, such as larger blades that receive even more force from the wind. They are imposing mega-constructions that will also affect this wake effect, aggravating the problem. Solutions? Different countries are doing calculations. For example, in the United States, esteem that the planned offshore wind farms will produce a devastating wake effect: losses in the annual electricity production of other farms by up to 48.5 TWh per year. And there are already accusations: the Netherlands says that Belgium takes advantage of its wind, Germany says that the Netherlands is harming them… and the United Kingdom’s offshore parks stealing wind each other. The solution? Nothing simple, especially when many of these parks have either already been built or are under construction, but even so, research is being carried out to optimize the facilities. For example, adjusting turbine angles and optimizing the space between them, manufacturing higher power turbines to produce more with less or creating buffer zones between parks And, perhaps, the most difficult thing: that countries cooperate to carry out joint studies to place their facilities in the most efficient way for everyone. Images | ESMAP, G B_NZ In Xataka | In the great battle for wind turbines, Spain goes against Europe: it wants them further away than ever

the map of genetic dispersion that Europe does not know how to stop

by

The sperm donors They are essential people to give a bit of hope to families who cannot conceive children due to different issues related to their health or even the biological impossibility of doing so. But sometimes this is something that can go very wrong, as has become clear with the case of sperm donor 7069a Danish man whose semen was used to conceive 197 children and to whom has transmitted a hereditary disease apart from them that can be fatal. The problem. what it seemed a standard donation process managed by the giant European Sperm Bankhas ended up uncovering some seams in assisted reproduction on the continent that were already announced. And this person has a mutation in their DNA, specifically in the TP53 gene, which is associated with a Li-Fraumeni syndrome. An extremely rare disease that is transmitted through genetics that drastically increases the risk of suffering from multiple types of cancer from childhood. Something that implies that part of his descendants will have a high mortality because of all these tumors. Something that immediately set off alarm bells. A mosaic patient. Donating sperm is a laborious process due to the number of studies that have to be passed, which include a genetic panel to rule out those donors who have serious diseases that can be transmitted to their offspring. But in this case this disease screening ended up failing. All because it is a mosaic patient. This donor managed to overcome all the medical filters because his genetic alteration did not occur in all the cells of the body, but that was only in his sperm and also only in 20%. In Spain this is something that can be overlooked since the genetic panel is done with a simple blood sample and without analyzing the genetic material of the sperm. Green card. The fact of doing a blood test caused a repeated false negative that led to this serious problem. Furthermore, two decades ago screening focused on specific diseases such as cystic fibrosis with the aim of not fertilizing an egg that also had this alteration. But in the end this donor had a green card until 2023 when the sperm bank blocked his donations. The regulatory problem. If biology explains why the flaw was not detected, bureaucracy explains why it spread so much. And this donor has highlighted the many seams that exist in Europe in terms of assisted reproduction. To give us an idea, andn Spain the legislation establishes that a donor cannot have more than six children (including their own), causing their donations to be blocked when they reach that limit. But in Spain this person has 35 children… Something that explains why there is no centralized registry that cross-references data with foreign banks. Spanish clinics import the samples relying on the data of origin, but they have no way of knowing if that donor has already reached their quota in another country or even in another Spanish clinic. Disparity of criteria. In addition to not having a common databaseThere are countries like Denmark that allow you to have up to 12 children or Germany that sets it at 15. Something that is also added to the fact that in Spain there is a large number of egg donations and attracts thousands of foreign patients, which increases the complexity of traceability. This lack of communication allows the existence of “super donors”, men who, following the law in each country individually, end up having hundreds of descendants globally, increasing not only the risk of the spread of rare genetic diseases, but also that of accidental endogamy between half-siblings who are unaware of their relationship. The solution. Seeing the serious consequences that this lack of control can have at the European level, the solution is very simple: have a European donor registry. In this way, each clinic or public service that performs a fertilization leaves it registered so that anywhere in Europe it is known that that donor has several children in another country. But this would also make it much easier to trace the problem that a child has presented and the possibility that the donor is to blame through his or her genetic material. This is something that have already requested eight EU Health Ministers and about which there is currently no news on the matter. Images | Elena In Xataka |

Europe was happy with the changes in the App Store, but not with those in Google Play. There is a historic fine at stake

by

Google is in the crosshairs of the European Commission. A few days ago they announced a new investigation into monopolistic practices with AI summaries, but it is not the only front they have open. The company has already paid historical fines and you face a new one if you don’t make changes to Google Play, your app store. what has happened. They tell it in Reuters. The European Commission is not satisfied with the changes that Google has made to its app store to comply with the Digital Markets Act or DMA. Regulators consider that there are two points that do not comply with the standards: There are technical restrictions that make it difficult for developers to direct users to external channels with better prices. Google continues to charge a commission to the developer even if the user buys the app from its website, with the excuse that they have “facilitated” the purchase. Why is it important. If Google does not make the necessary changes to comply with the DMA, it faces a fine that could amount to 10% of its total revenue. In 2024 they will invoice 350,000 million dollarsso the maximum fine would amount to 35,000 million, the highest to date. Google can still offer to apply changes to avoid paying the fine. The Apple case. The one the Commission is satisfied with is Apple. In fact, they are using your case as an example of what needs to be done. It was not a bed of roses and Apple was fined 500 million euros for not complying with the DMA. Apple had to remove restrictions that prevented redirection to alternative offers. The Epic trial. The European Commission is not the only one that has Google Play in its sights. In the United States, the judge of the Epic vs Google case made a historic decision: Google would have to allow rival stores within the Play Store. Recently Google and Epic reached an agreement through which Google undertakes not to charge commissions of more than 20% on purchases’in-game’ and 9% for the rest. In addition, developers will be able to showcase other payment systems through Play Billing. The agreement must still be approved by the judge, but it seems that Google will have no options but to comply with what both the judge and the EU ask of it. What Google says. The company announced changes in Google Play last August to avoid the fine, is what the Commission now considers insufficient. Google competition lawyer Clare Kelly said the company was “concerned that these could expose Android users to harmful content.” This is the usual position of American companies that are under the scrutiny of the European Commission. Mark Zuckerberg called the DMA “censorship” and there has also been harsh criticism and tariff threats since the Trump administration. Recently, a national security strategy document He claimed that European laws could mean an “erasure of American civilization.” The fruits of the DMA. He overregulation of the European Union is subject to criticism, but It also has a good side. Thanks to the DMA has made USB-C mandatory for all manufacturers, forcing Apple to abandon its proprietary connector. It has also brought us the Universal AirDrop and the changes in the app stores so that we have more freedom when it comes to where to download our apps. Image | Xataka, Pexels In Xataka | Europe wants to protect itself against Huawei, but the energy sector knows something uncomfortable: it cannot move forward without it

In 2024 a package bomb arrived on a plane. It was the beginning of the great threat to Europe: that of a “ghost” crossing the red lines

by

Europe lives a strategic transformation that few had imagined possible in such a short time. What began as a series of “flats” (intermittent blackouts, suspicious fires, minor incursions) has become a coherent pattern: a campaign of directed hybrid war that is no longer limited to destabilizing, but rather deliberately explore the thresholds of what it can inflict without provoking a direct military response. It all started a year ago. The silent climb. The plot is explained more clearly from July 2024when several DHL packages exploded in centers logistics from the United Kingdom, Poland and Germany, devices powerful enough to shoot down a plane if they had detonated in mid-flight. The episode, an infiltrated bomb at the heart of the European air system, marked a before and after, because it showed to what extent Moscow was willing to strain continental security and because it exposed the fragility of an Old Continent trapped between an increasingly aggressive Russia and a United States whose commitment has stopped being reliableand. Since then, Europe no longer sees hybrid warfare as a peripheral nuisance, but as a structural threat which targets critical infrastructures, social cohesion and the European institutional framework itself. In Xataka Mercadona has found a vein to grow beyond its white label and prepared food: tourism The Russian laboratory. I counted this week the financial times that the Russian campaign has been refined in breadth and depth. European intelligence services have disabled plots to derail trains full of passengers, set fire to shopping malls, damage dams or contaminate water in urban areas. The attacks are not isolated improvisations: they respond to a “gig economy” model of sabotage in which young recruited by Telegramlocal criminals or foreigners with residence permits act as expendable pawns for unknown objectives. Plus: they are difficult to detect, impossible to anticipate and legally ambiguous, since they rarely there is a direct connection with Russian intelligence that allows them to be accused of espionage. The case of frustrated railway sabotage in Poland (an explosive planted on the Warsaw-Lublin line that came within seconds of causing a massacre) exposed that pattern in its clearest form: unimpeded entry and exit, cryptocurrency financingfalse identities issued by Moscow and a diffuse chain of command that leads to intermediaries as Mikhail Mirgorodsky or even networks managed by former Wagner members. And there is more. Yes, because each cell discovered suggests others not yet detected, and what is worrying is not the errors of saboteurs (sometimes incapable to delete videos of its own attacks) but the scale that this model offers to a Russia resentful of decades of diplomatic expulsions and doctrinally rearmed to a pre-war period. The doctrine that returns. The ISS analysts They recently reported that the archives of the KGB and the StB (Czechoslovak intelligence) reveal parallels disturbing differences between the sabotage manuals of the Cold War and what Europe witnesses today. The objectives listed decades ago (military bases, energy infrastructures, dams, communication systems, transportation) match almost exactly with the whites of the last two years. Equally revealing is the doctrinal sequencing: during times of peace, minor attacks with the appearance of accidents, in pre-war phases, massive sabotage, increased risk tolerated and increasing willingness to cause civilian casualties, and in open war, total activation of clandestine networks for lethal operations. The prelude to something more fat. It we count very recently. If you will, Europe seems to have entered fully into a intermediate stage: a pre-war phase where each incident also functions as offensive reconnaissance, a permanent exercise by razvedka boyem to measure Western reaction capacity, locate vulnerabilities and exploit any weaknesses. The episode of the unidentified drones airports and military bases European operations illustrate this dynamic: cheap raids, of uncertain origin, that revealed systemic failures in the continental air defense and that, due to their replicator effect (copies, jokes, hysteria, false alarms) multiply the psychological and financial wear and tear. A continent without a network. I remembered the new york times This morning an added problem for Europe: that if the Russian threat escalates, the other half of the problem is the growing disconnection with the United States. For the first time since 1945, Europe perceives that Washington is not unequivocally on your side in a matter of war and peace. The Trump administration is not only pressuring kyiv to accept an agreement In Moscow’s terms, it also redefines Europe as a suspicious actor, criticizes the democratic integrity of its governments and promises to openly support the European extreme right. The result is an unprecedented scenario: a Russia that intensifies its hybrid campaign, a Ukraine that depends almost entirely on continental support and a Europe that must finance your own safety while compensating for the withdrawal of US capabilities (satellites, long-range missiles, command and control) that it cannot replace before 2029the year that NATO considers the limit to have a credible deterrent. European leaders also face depleted budgets, electorates hostile to increased military spending, and a rising far-right that Moscow sees as a strategic multiplier. {“videoId”:”x8j6422″,”autoplay”:false,”title”:”Declassified video of the clash between Russian fighters and the American drone”, “tag”:”united states”, “duration”:”42″} The battle of money. The internal European debate on how to finance the resistance Ukrainian reflects the magnitude of the challenge. To support kyiv for the next two years, about $200 billion is needed, an unaffordable figure without activating the 210,000 million euros on Russian assets frozen in Europe. The problem? Right now it takes the name of Belgiumwhich guards the majority through Euroclear, and which fears retaliation from Moscow and the possible erosion of the credibility of the euro as a safe haven. Washington, despite its strategic ambiguity, is also pressing for these funds to be don’t touch each othersince its eventual return is part of the US scheme for a peace agreement favorable to Russia. One more thing. And yet, without that money, Europe would have to coordinate (outside the EU framework) a colossal loan and politically explosive. The crossroads are so profound that in Berlin and Paris they are … Read more

The elite of the open models spoke in Chinese. Mistral has just placed Europe at a level that not even the US managed to reach

by

Over the last year, the elite of open models for assisted programming, at least in benchmarks as SWE-Bench Verifiedhas spoken with a Chinese accent. Names like DeepSeek, Kimi either qwen They had settled into the top positions in testing and were setting the pace in complex software engineering tasks, while Europe was still searching for its position. The arrival of Devstral 2 alters that distribution. It does not displace those who were already at the top, but it places Mistral at the same level of demand and turns a European company into a real contender in a field that until now seemed reserved for others. League change: the technical leap that had been brewing for some time. During recent months, the open models developed in Europe and the United States had shown constant evolution, although still without the performance necessary to compete in the most demanding tests. The progress was evident, but there was a lack of a project capable of consolidating it at a higher level and demonstrating that this path could give results comparable to those of the sector. Devstral 2 in data: performance, size and licenses. The new Mistral model reaches 123B parameters in a dense architecture and offers an expanded context of 256K tokens, accompanied by a modified MIT license that facilitates its adoption in open environments. Its compact version, Devstral Small 2, reduces the model to 24B licensed parameters Apache 2.0. In the SWE-Bench Verified figures published by the companyDevstral 2 obtains 72.2%, a mark that places it in the most competitive section of the open models evaluated and that confirms its presence among the most advanced alternatives in the segment. It is reflected by a panorama concentrated in the upper part of the benchmark. Among the open models, DeepSeek V3.2 leads the group with 73.1%, followed by Kimi K2 Thinking with 71.3% and for proposals such as Qwen 3 Coder Plus and Minimax M2, which are around 69 points. At lower levels GLM 4.6, GPT-OSS-120B, CWM and DeepSWE appear, with more moderate results. In the closed commercial environment (proprietary models), the graph incorporates higher scores: Gemini 3 Pro reaches 76.2%, GPT 5.1 Codex Max rises to 77.9% and Claude Sonnet 4.5 scores 77.2%, all of them above the best brands registered for open models. What SWE-Bench Verified Really Measures and Why It Matters. SWE-Bench Verified is a test designed to evaluate whether a model can solve real programming tasks, not synthetic exercises. Each case presents a bug in an open source repository and requires a patch to pass the previously failed tests. The evaluation seeks to measure whether the system understands the structure of the project, identifies the cause of the problem and proposes a coherent solution. It is a useful and demanding metric, although limited to Python repositories and a specific set of situations that do not cover the full breadth of software work. From co-pilots to agents who act on the project. The arrival of Devstral 2 coincides with a broader change in the way of working with programming tools. It is no longer just about receiving suggestions in the editor, but about having agents capable of exploring an entire repository, interpreting its structure and proposing changes consistent with its real state. In this context, Vibe CLI appears, a tool that allows Devstral to analyze files, modify parts of the code and execute actions directly from the terminal, bringing these capabilities closer to the daily workflow of developers. Cost and deployment: what each type of user can do with Devstral. The model will be available for free for an initial period and will then cost $0.40 per million tokens for input and $2.00 per million for output, while the Small 2 version will be priced lower. Its deployment also makes a difference: Devstral 2 requires at least four H100-class GPUs, aimed at data centers, while Devstral Small 2 is intended to run on a single GPU and, according to Mistral documentation, the Devstral Small family can also run in CPU-only configurations, without a dedicated GPU. This variety allows both companies and individual developers to find a suitable entry point. The appearance of Devstral 2 introduces an unexpected element in a space where Chinese companies set the pace and where not even the United States, despite its leadership in artificial intelligence, had an open model in this high performance range in SWE-Bench Verified. Mistral does not displace those who were already at the top, but it does broaden the conversation and shows that Europe can compete in a field where it did not appear until now. It is a movement that does not alter the general hierarchy, although it does open a new margin for the evolution of assisted programming tools. Images | Xataka with Gemini 3 In Xataka | OpenAI and Google deny that they are going to put ads in ChatGPT and Gemini. The reality is that accounts do not come only with subscriptions

Ford will have two electric cars based on the Renault 5. It is confirmation of a Ford that is diluted in Europe

by

Ford will have at least six electric cars on the market. Four of them will not be “purely Ford” cars. And the American company has confirmed that it has reached an agreement with Renault to provide the brand with two “affordable” electric cars. The agreement also contemplates a future partnership for commercial vehicles. But above all, a concept floats in the air: what Ford do we expect for Europe? Two electric made in Renault. With a press release, Ford and Renault have confirmed that the first will use the Ampere platform to launch two “affordable” electric cars on the market in the coming years. The first, they point out from Ford, should reach dealerships in the early stages of 2028. That is to say, what seems certain is that we will see a kind of Renault 5 with the Ford logo. The question is whether we will see a second electric car based on the Renault 4 (to expand spectrum with something B-SUV type) or based on the Twingo to look for another type of client. For now, everything indicates pointing to new Renault 5 and 4 Ford. In France. These Ford cars with a French flavor will even be manufactured in Electricitythe plant that Renault has in France and where the aforementioned come from Five and Fourhence it is the couple that we will probably see on the street. The arrival of these new models is also a boost to the factory itself. It is where Renault’s small electric models are assembled, but also the Nissan Micra (brother of the Renault 5). They have the capacity to continue expanding production and had options from Alpine, Dacia or Mitusbishi, which are also part of the Renault Group or are collaborators. The arrival of the new Ford is an endorsement for a plant that has the capacity to assemble up to 620,000 vehicles annually. Ford, what Ford? In the statement, Ford wanted to mark territory and defend that the new cars that leave the French plant will have the hallmarks of the oval brand. “The two cars will feature distinctive driving dynamics, authentic Ford brand DNA and an intuitive user experience,” the company says. The truth is that in the medium term, Ford will have six electric cars on the market and four of them are mounted on external platforms. Thus, only the Puma Gen-E and the Mustang Mach-E They are purely Ford cars. The ford explorer and Capri have been launched on the basis of Volkswagen’s MEB, with the ID.4 as a brother of the Americans. Now two more electric cars will arrive from outside the company. The two speeds. The announcement does nothing more than reaffirm the strategy that Ford seems to have decided for Europe. The company has long been talking about a company at two speeds where the vehicles with the highest cost for the customer (and benefits for the company) are manufactured by Ford with its hallmarks and sold in exclusive families within the company itself such as Ford, Raptor or Bronco. The rest of the models, such as electric ones, for which you must make big investments and whose financial results are not being too good due to slower customer reception than expected, is what is being left in the hands of third parties. That is to say, Ford is trying to focus its efforts and make its highest-cost investments in those models that it knows work best for them. This has a counterpart. The brand risks being diluted between models that have their personal touch, like the Explorer, but where there is no doubt that they have a very characteristic Volkswagen car flavor. This strategy of “third party” models for Europe endangers the company’s brand image and could place it in a less dominant position if in the future they want to return to making their own investments for the European market. And Valencia? The announcement adds to the future Ford Bronco Sport for Europe, a model that will be assembled in Valencia, according to Automotive Newsand that comes to keep the plant alive with a “Europeanization” of the American model based on the Ford Kuga. A few weeks ago, The Automotive Tribune It also pointed out this possibility and that another second model would arrive at the Valencian plant. This strategy would help keep the factory alive by assembling models with combustion engines while electric ones (which require greater investment and lower return at low prices) are being left in the hands of third parties. Photo | Renault and Ford In Xataka | Until now, on Amazon you could buy practically everything except cars. That just changed with Ford

Europe has been warning for years that firing in Spain is a bargain. Now Congress is making a move with the “restorative dismissal”

by

Unfair dismissal in Spain is a bargain for companies. At least that is what the European Committee of Social Rights (CEDS), dependent on the Council of Europe, has been telling Spain for years. Throughout this time, the Government has turned a deaf ear to the recommendations from Brussels. However, an unexpected turn caused by the mistake of a representative of the Popular Party During a vote in Congress, a Non-Law Proposal (PNL) by Sumar was allowed to prosper, which urges the Government to present a bill to reform the laws that prevent the application of the restorative dismissal that Europe has actively and passively requested. Europe has been warning since 2021. When Spain ratified in 2021 the European Social Charterassumed the commitment to harmonize its labor legislation with its principles. Since then, the European Committee of Social Rights (CEDS), an advisory body of the Council of Europe, has reiterated that the Spanish system, based on a fixed calculation of 33 days per year worked and a maximum of 24 months, does not meet the criteria of said commitment. The problem is that the European Social Charter is a set of guidelines, but it is not binding, and the CEDS is a consultative body, so it cannot demand legislative modifications from Spain. Its resolutions are recommendations, valuable from a legal and political point of view, but without executive force. This lack of obligation has allowed Spain to postpone reforms that would change the way compensation is calculated for employees for unfair dismissal. The cornerstone: article 24. The point of greatest friction to undertake the reforms is found in article 24 of the European Social Charter. It requires “the right of workers dismissed without valid reason (unfair dismissal) to adequate compensation or other appropriate relief.” This means ensuring that compensations to employees for unfair dismissal must be “appropriate and dissuasive”. Something that, as a general rule, does not occur in the system of fixed compensation that is currently applied in all judicial processes for unfair dismissal. This time the request has not come from Europe. Despite having dictated different resolutions and requestsnothing has changed in Europe’s position, nor has it gained power to force Spain to implement the legislative changes. However, what has changed is internal politics. In September, a Non-Law Proposition promoted by Sumar managed to get ahead thanks to the voting error of a PP deputy, repeating the scene that in 2022 allowed approve the labor reform. This NLP does not modify the law itself, but it does urge the Government to begin the legislative process to adapt the regulations to the European framework. This implies the opening of a social dialogue table with unions and employers and, subsequently, the preparation of a bill that must return to Congress to be voted on. The reform of the regulations to legislate unfair dismissals, therefore, is still a long way off, but for the first time the Executive is obliged to put it on the table. “Restorative dismissal” is not a type of dismissal. Among all the CEDS recommendations, none has generated as much debate as the so-called restorative dismissal. The name can lead to confusion: it is not a new category of dismissal as the disciplinarynull or inadmissible, but refers to a proposal to transform How compensation is calculated when a dismissal is declared unfair. Europe considers that the current Spanish system is too predictable and, in many cases, insufficient. The result is that companies can treat unfair dismissal as a more or less easy cost to assume and choose which employees or how many to dismiss based on the cost of the operation. Restorative dismissal causes this calculation to vary from one employee to another and is under the sole discretion of a judge, which would prevent companies from calculating in advance the final cost of the dismissal. What is restorative dismissal?. As its name indicates, restorative dismissal is a model that seeks to individualize the severance payment to the specific damage it causes to the dismissed employee, instead of an automatic calculation based in days per year worked. Judges could assess specific factors in each case, taking into account factors such as the age and social situation of the worker, the real probability of re-entering the labor market, the economic and personal impact of the dismissal, or the size, solvency, or economic capacity of the dismissing company. Based on these factors, for example, a 60-year-old worker with children and a 24-year-old single worker who were fired by the same company in similar positions would obtain different compensation because, statistically, the older one would have less likely to return to the labor market than the young person. Europe understands that this flexibility is essential to repair the real damage of dismissal and to act as a preventive mechanism. Deterrence, protection and less business calculation. The objective of restorative dismissal is not only to better compensate the worker based on the impact caused, but also to discourage the appeal of unfair dismissal and that, if companies really have economic problems that justify dismissals, they do so through dismissals for objective reasons. If the cost is no longer predictable, the company loses the ability to make profitability calculations. This protection measure especially affects precarious groups who, due to their low salary or short seniority, are very cheap to fire: young people, women and precarious workers. Furthermore, Europe insists that the reinstatement after dismissal inadmissible should no longer be optional for the company as it is currently, and should become a real possibility imposed by the court when it is appropriate. Restoration, in this sense, is not only economic, but also labor-related. Justice has its hands tied. Despite Europe’s insistence, the Spanish courts have rejected impose compensation higher than the current scale included in the article 56 of the Workers’ Statute. The reason was not a lack of judicial will, but the absence of a legal framework that would allow additional compensation to be established without generating legal uncertainty. In Xataka | … Read more

Europe had chosen the electric car as the only solution for the future. Germany is about to knock him down

by

There is no official confirmation. It should arrive on December 10, but there is already a first warning that it is possible that the communication will be delayed until January 2026. “For good reasons,” the political leaders assure us. The same people in charge who already advance the guidelines that the review of the 2035 objectives will follow: allowing cars with combustion engines to remain alive. A preview. This is what Apostolos Tzitzikostas, European Commissioner for Transport, gave to the German newspaper Handelsblatt. Like almost everything in this life, neither the time nor the place chosen is coincidental. In this interview, the European official points out that in the European Commission “we are open to all technologies”, which already suggests that this ban on selling combustion engines in 2035 is close to falling. In the absence of knowing all the specific and official details, what it does say is that “the role of zero-emission fuels (known as efuels) and with low emissions and advanced biofuels.” And this is where some doubts arise. Why does an electric car have less autonomy than advertised? No emissions? What the European Union has to resolve is to what extent it is willing to open its hand. The efuels or synthetic fuels They have been sold as an alternative solution because, it is assumed, they do not generate CO2 emissions. When the car burns said fuel it does generate these emissions but they are neutral because the same or greater amount of CO2 is trapped in their production. The European Union has already opened the door to this possibility changing the wording of the ban. We went from talking about banning combustion engines that produced emissions to combustion engines that were not carbon neutral. The difference is subtle but key because with the burning of any fuel (including hydrogen) polluting emissions beyond CO2 are produced, such as NOx or the dangerous ones fine particles which, in both cases, are harmful to humans. “Low emissions”. Now the European Commissioner also speaks of “low-emission fuels.” It remains to be known what these low emissions are and in what quantities they will be allowed. And the alternative that was put on the table was to allow the sale of combustion engines as long as they were associated with highly electrified options. This would lead, for example, to extended range electric. Cars with long electric ranges but that, in essence, are plug-in hybrids because they have a gasoline tank for emergency use. One of the latest proposals is that the car itself, through software, cape the power when a specific number of kilometers has been traveled without recharging the vehicle. Another technically viable possibility is to geofence the cities. That is, using the vehicle’s navigator, the car always moves in completely electric mode when passing through a city or especially sensitive areas of it (hospitals, schools…). This alternative has been contemplated by some plug-in hybrids for years, like BMW’s. And why all this? Because, according to Tzitzikostas, Europe is risking part of its industrial and economic future. “We want to maintain our objectives, but we must take into account all the latest geopolitical events. We must try not to jeopardize our competitiveness and, at the same time, help European industry maintain its technological advantage,” he points out in the interview. In reaching this conclusion it seems that German pressures have had their effect. “Chancellor Merz’s letter has been very well received,” he told the German media. And Germany has been pushing for some time to go back in the face of the “all electric” that seemed decided for Europe. The German industry is facing one of the worst crises in its history and it is estimated that, in just the last two years, about 55,000 jobs have been lost. When will it be official? The idea is that in December we should already know what will happen to this ban in 2035. In recent days the idea had gained strength that it would be December 10 when the European Commission would confirm all these details but the person in charge of transport has already announced that it is possible that this communication will be delayed until January 2026. Photo | Sophie Jonas and Angelo Abear In Xataka | The Government presents the Auto Plus Plan to forget MOVES III: direct aid for the purchase of electric cars with doubts to clear up

The round of peace meetings in Ukraine has ended. Russia says it is “ready”, but for war with Europe

by

The last two rounds of contacts between the Kremlin and Trump’s envoys have confirmed that the peace process for Ukraine is technically alive, but politically blocked. Putin took advantage of the arrival of the emissaries to launch a verbal offensive: Accused Europe of torpedoing peace, suggested the EU “is on the side of war,” and said Russia does not want a continental conflict but that if Europe starts one, “we are ready right now.” A trapped peace process. For Moscow, the talks are “very useful” as they allow it probe the limits Washington and explore what it is willing to sacrifice in exchange for a stable ceasefire. For the United States, they are an opportunity to zoom in positions without openly acknowledging that the original plan favored Russia too much and was unacceptable to kyiv. Five hours of meeting in Moscow served to review successive versions of the US document, but not to generate a “compromise option”: Russia accepts some elements, rejects others with a “critical and even negative attitude” and, above all, keeps intact its objective of translating its military advances in territorial gains formalized on paper. Moscow red lines. At the center of the disagreement is the territorial question. Moscow insists Ukraine must resign to 20% of Donetsk which he still preserves, while boasting (not without response from kyiv) of having taken Pokrovska key logistical hub that had been in operation for more than a year trying to capture with a great cost in lives and material. This insistence is not only cartographic: is part of a maximization logicin which victories at the front are used as an argument to tighten political conditions. Added to this are other structural requirements: deep cuts in the Ukrainian armed forces, severe limits on Western military aid and a fit of Ukraine into the Russian sphere of influence that would empty its formal sovereignty of content. In this context, talking about “progress” is, in reality, talk about margins: Washington explores how far it can give in without kyiv perceiving it as a capitulation, while Russia calculates how far it can stretch its demands without completely breaking the diplomatic channel that is useful to buy time and legitimize its narrative. Parallel diplomacy and mixed signals. Witkoff and Kushner’s role adds a ambiguity layer to the process. They are not classic diplomats, but political emissaries who operate in a gray zone between official diplomacy and American domestic politics. His presence in Moscow, after meeting with Ukrainians in Florida and reviewing a 28 point plan which initially tilted the board towards Moscow, sends several signals at once: kyiv is shown that Washington “listens” to its objections and tweaks the document, Moscow is made clear that the White House is willing to continue negotiating concession frameworks, and Europe is reminded that the decisive conversation remains, above all, Washington-Moscow. The Trump statement Calling the war a “mess” that is difficult to resolve fits with that approach: rather than a closed strategy, the administration seems to seek an agreement that reduces the political and economic cost of the war for the United States, although the final balance is very delicate for Ukraine. Europe as a scapegoat. The Putin’s words on Europe reveal a perfectly calculated strategy: presenting European capitals as the real obstacle to peace, accusing them of “being on the side of the war” and of preventing Washington from closing an agreement. By saying that “Europe is preventing the US administration from achieving peace in Ukraine,” the Kremlin is trying several things at the same time: put pressure on the Europeans to lower their demands, feed the fatigue of war in Western societies and drive a wedge between the United States and its allies, suggesting that Washington would be more flexible if it were not bound by “European demands.” The added threat that Russia “does not intend to fight Europe, but is ready if Europe starts” has a double effect: it works as a military warning and, at the same time, as an internal message to reinforce the idea of ​​a besieged Russia that only defends itself. The risk of being isolated. For Ukraine, cross-play is especially dangerous. Zelenskiy insists on receiving security guarantees “livable” for the future, that is, mechanisms that prevent a new Russian attack once an agreement has been signed. HE frontally opposes to any formula that forces him to give up territory that he currently controls or to reduce his army to levels that leave him defenseless. But, at the same time, it knows that a part of the European capitals and the American political class are seeking, with increasing urgency, an outcome that freezes the war and stabilizes the front, even if that enshrines a status quo very unfavorable for Ukraine. Its margin consists of supporting in the European bloc tougher (those countries that see a bad agreement as a disastrous precedent for continental security) and to remember that any credible reconstruction involves using frozen russian assets and for a framework of Western guarantees that makes another Kremlin attack politically unaffordable. Putin’s calculation of strength. The threats “cutting off Ukraine from the sea completely” and intensifying attacks on ports and ships entering them fit into a broader strategy: combine slow but steady advances in the Donbas with the ability to strangle the Ukrainian economy and make the protection of its maritime corridors more expensive. Each city taken or partially controlled serves the Kremlin as proof that time is in its favor and that it can rise the price of peace at each plan review. Editorials from related media, as Komsomolskaya Pravdareinforce this idea by presenting the negotiations as a scenario in which Russia can afford to tighten its conditions as “more and more Ukrainian territory” passes into its hands. The implicit message is clear: if the current proposals already seem harsh, the next round could be worse for kyiv if the war continues. Uncertainty. The final result is a peace process that formally remains open, but that moves on a dangerous … Read more

Russian oil never stopped arriving in Europe and this 30-year-old German knows it well because he has earned millions by supporting the system.

by

JR Ewing, the oil magnate dallasused to repeat that “the essential thing in this business was to always be one step ahead.” If I lived in 2025, I probably wouldn’t be wearing a Texan hat: I’d be a trader in my late 30s with a laptop, a rented office in Dubai, and a German passport. And perhaps he would look a lot like Christopher Eppinger, the young man who, according to an extensive report in the Financial Timeshas managed to become a millionaire by speculating with sanctioned Russian oil while Europe proclaimed from the rooftops that it was breaking dependence on the Kremlin. Because while Brussels talked about “energy sovereignty” and announced price caps, a parallel ecosystem of nomadic traders, ghost fleets and opaque companies continued to move millions of barrels away from the official radar. In that underground of the global economy, Eppinger found his opportunity. The sanctioned oil never stopped flowing; It simply stopped being visible. And he knew how to make it profitable. When a door closes. Christopher Eppinger, marked since childhood by the chapters of dallas that he saw with his grandmother, he found in the war a window to get rich. The young German moved with the same logic that much more veteran intermediaries have used for decades: special purpose companies in the United Arab Emirates, triangulated operations with India or China, sales contracts for discounted crude oil and the logistics of a ghost fleet that operates on the margins of maritime law. While European governments presented sanctions in solemn press conferences, he took advantage of every crack in the system to buy low and resell high. He didn’t need his own ships, or infrastructure, or even physically touching a barrel: it was enough to know where the opportunities were and who didn’t want to look too closely. Showing an uncomfortable truth. The story of this young German is not an anecdote, but evidence that the sanctioning system never acted as intended. Organization reports like Public Eye show that, between 2023 and 2024 alone, newly created companies or companies relocated to Dubai accounted for more than half of the Russian oil exported by sea, displacing traditional centers such as Switzerland and Singapore. According to Bloombergkey figures in the energy trade, such as Murtaza Lakhani, helped Rosneft reconfigure its export chains through the Emirates to keep flows active despite sanctions. And while much of Europe tried to break ties with Moscow, some countries —like Hungary and Slovakia— took advantage of exceptions to continue receiving crude oil and gas through the Druzhba pipeline. Energy dependence, far from being broken, fragmented into a more chaotic, less transparent and more vulnerable system. In this environment, profiles like Eppinger’s are not only possible: they are almost inevitable. The recipe for enrichment. Eppinger’s method follows a clear logic that the Financial Times details precisely. The first step is to move to Dubai, which has become the “Desert Ireland”thanks to minimal taxation, thousands of special purpose companies created in record time and a confidentiality regime that allows operations without revealing the beneficial owner. The United Arab Emirates does not apply sanctions against Moscow and serves as a perfect platform to move cargo, contracts and dividends without European surveillance. The second pillar is the ghost fleet: hundreds of aging, poorly insured oil tankers, with registrations in opaque countries and with transponders that turn off just when the ship approaches a Russian cargo. These ships They are the heart of parallel trade which has kept Russia exporting above the $60 limit imposed by the G7. The third consists of the Offshore transfers and triangulations. The scheme is simple: buy cheap Russian crude, transfer it to another tanker in international waters, mix it or rename it “Malaysian” or “Indian”, and resell it at an international price. A digital business, fast and — above all — difficult to track. And the fourth element is the ambiguous tolerance of the West. As Bloomberg has detailedthe United States avoided acting harshly for months to avoid causing a global rise in the price of oil. In the EU, exceptions and loopholes allowed non-European companies, although controlled by Europeans, to operate without restrictions. Eppinger moved precisely in that gray space: a legally ambiguous but economically explosive territory. The great gray void where everything is possible. The short answer is: it depends. The long answer is more uncomfortable. According to regulators cited in the different sources, an operation can be technically legal if Russian oil is purchased below the price ceiling, transported to a country that does not apply sanctions and is executed from a legally established entity outside the EU. Switzerland even recognizedaccording to Public Eye— that subsidiaries of Swiss companies established in Dubai are not subject to Swiss sanctioning legislation, as long as they are formally “independent.” This legal architecture allows traders like Eppinger to act without violating the letter of the law, even if they clearly violate its spirit. The question is not so much whether what you do is legal, but why it is possible to do it. Will there be consequences? The cracks in the system are beginning to produce visible effects. On the military front, Ukraine has expanded the war towards Russian energy infrastructure: attacking refineries thousands of kilometers from the front and disabled tankers linked to sanctioned crude oil trading. Russia has lost around 13% of its refining capacity and several regions have suffered queues and gasoline rationing, according to the Financial Times. On the diplomatic and economic level, according to BloombergWashington is already studying specific sanctions against intermediaries in the Emirates, while the United Kingdom has begun to penalize marketing companies with opaque property registered in Dubai. In Europe, pressure is growing on countries that continue to receive Russian energy by land, such as Hungary and Slovakia, identified as leakage points in the system. Eppinger’s business, like that of many others, could have its days numbered if the regulatory fence tightens. For now, it is still profitable. Russia gets richer while Europe … Read more

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.