bacondragonoverlord

My dude, but essentially that's whats already happening. No energy is cheaper than renewable energy. Every process we thus electrify and use renewables is not using fossile fuels.

Thus we have less of a need for subsidized oil.

Neither does Ukraine. Still decimated the russian navy.

Also to nip this whole "argument" in the bud, and I'm not even going into how terribly colonialistic your proposal is, how many billions of euro would you propose to put into essentially propping up a already dead technology. Fossil fuels have to be eliminated by 2050. Why wage war for something we won't even need in 25 years.

We WANT to increase fossil fuel prices. To hasten the change to renewables, the higher the potential savings the better.

Lol welcome to Afghanistan. It's not armies marching in a straight line that will be the problem.

Welcome to the gulf wars.

Sorry I somehow forgot the first part of your question. If I understand correctly they threaten to sell off the debt they hold which will increase the supply of that debt, while at the same time decrease the amount of potential buyers.

To still be able to sell their debt the EU countries now have to (as any country needs a constant influx of money) make the new debt more attractive by offering better interest etc

Well first this doesn't really have anything to do with the article.

But to answer your question:

Be in a situation where your central bank (they can't get bankrupt as they literally print money) doesn't give interest (negative interest even better)

Be big, financially competent and trustworthy enough that no one doubts that you can pay back any loan.

Now people that have too much money and need a convenient place to store that money without too much costs buy your debt for more than what it's worth.

Profit.

The logo in the lock is wrong.

That's the logo of the council of Europe not the council of the European Union.

It doesn't look like a great news source if you get stuff like that wrong.