The troika, of course being also conveniently headed by the German chancellor, or "the de facto leader of the European Union (EU)" as her Wikipedia page explains in its introductory description.
Sorry, this is bullshit. It's like saying the EU parliament conveniently is in Belgium and therefore Belgium controls it.
"The ECB is directly governed by European Union law. Its capital stock, worth €11 billion, is owned by all 27 central banks of the EU member states as shareholders." [0]
[0] https://www.ecb.europa.eu/ecb/orga/capital/html/index.en.htm...
I recommend https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission
as reading if you truly believe I'm talking about "soft power" from "large economy size"
The topic is not coal, the topic is nuclear. You suddenly started talking about coal, claiming that Germany wants to reduce its own nuclear power plants in order to use more of its own coal. Makes zero sense since the nuclear plants were inside the country, not outside so it doesn't make sense to pretend that Germany is pushing its own product at the expense of someone else. And it is factually wrong, since Germany is also moving aways from coals until 2030.
I'm not downvoting you because I can't even do this, since HN does not permit to downvote replies. But if I could I would have done so since you make wild claims without providing even a shred of evidence or a source.
https://www.bloomberg.com/toaster/v2/charts/4d971e78dafc471b...
The only thing I can clearly see in this plot is the Invasion of Ukraine by Russia.
No matter what you want to say, it makes no sense, since both the nuclear plants and the coal plants are owned by German companies. It simply doesn't make sense to argue that Germany is trying to unfairly get an advantage by shutting down one type of it's plants to benefit the other type.
Name the struggling country that was supposedly put in a debt agreement. Is this Greece? Did Greece not _choose_ in a popular vote to remain in the Eurozone? Did they not enter the Eurozone by using fraudulent accounting in the first place? Let us know what Germany then supposedly did exactly during that crisis.
Regarding coal your argument makes zero sense. Either nuclear is cheaper and could cover all needs, then it doesn't matter how much coal there is, it could be left alone. Or it isn't, then there is no need to shut down nuclear to expand coal.
In reality German coal mining has not been economical for decades and has been heavily subsidised to safe some jobs. The German policy is to change everything to renewables and to phase out coal until 2030.