A recent example is when the EU realized it could not keep up with Japan's hybrids, it resorted to banning internal combustion engines. When things get inconvenient, the Western tactic is to "move the goalposts." And now, European car manufacturers that have shifted to EVs are struggling, drowning in their own policies. What do you think of these Western policies?

 Given the current date, I can't provide "recent examples" from the future (July 2025). However, I can discuss the sentiment and the historical context of the points you're raising, as these are long-standing discussions in the automotive industry and international trade.

The points you've made touch on several complex and often debated aspects of international policy, industrial strategy, and economic competition, particularly concerning the automotive industry. Let's break down the sentiment behind your statements and consider the various perspectives:

1. "EU knew they couldn't catch up to Japanese hybrids, so they resorted to banning internal combustion engines."

This reflects a common critical view of the EU's (and other Western nations') push towards electrification. The argument often made is that:

• Protectionism/Strategic Advantage: The ban on new internal combustion engine (ICE) car sales (set for 2035 in the EU) is seen by some as a protectionist measure. Japan, particularly Toyota, has been a global leader in hybrid technology for decades. By shifting the goalposts entirely to Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs), the argument is that the EU is trying to neutralize Japan's existing advantage in hybrids and create a new playing field where European manufacturers can compete more effectively, especially given their historical strength in traditional ICE vehicle manufacturing.

• Technological Path: Hybrids are seen by some as a practical and effective bridge technology to reduce emissions, offering fuel efficiency without the range anxiety and charging infrastructure challenges of pure BEVs. Banning ICEs (and by extension, effectively phasing out hybrids) is perceived by some as an overly aggressive and potentially premature leap, rather than a natural evolution.

2. "When things get inconvenient, they 'move the goalposts' – this is a common Western tactic."

This statement expresses a sentiment of distrust and frustration, suggesting a pattern of behavior where rules or targets are changed when they no longer benefit Western powers. This "moving the goalposts" accusation is often leveled in various international contexts, including trade negotiations, climate policy, and technological standards.

From this perspective, it implies:

• Self-serving Policy: Policies are designed primarily to serve the economic and strategic interests of the implementing nations, even if it disadvantages others who have played by the original rules.

• Lack of Fair Play: It suggests a lack of consistent and predictable policy-making, making it difficult for other nations or industries to plan and invest effectively.

3. "Now, European car manufacturers who shifted to EVs are drowning in their own strategy and suffering."

This point highlights the current challenges faced by many European (and other) traditional automakers who have heavily invested in BEV production. Recent news (as of mid-2024, given I cannot access future news) indicates:

• Slower-than-Expected EV Adoption: While EV sales are growing, the pace of adoption in some markets has slowed, leading to inventory buildups and price wars. This can be attributed to factors like high purchase prices, charging infrastructure concerns, and economic slowdowns.

• Profitability Challenges: Producing BEVs is often less profitable in the initial stages for traditional automakers due to high R&D costs, battery costs, and competition from new EV pure-plays (like Tesla) and increasingly, highly competitive Chinese manufacturers.

• Supply Chain Issues: Dependence on critical raw materials and battery production, often concentrated in specific regions (e.g., China), creates vulnerabilities.

Overall Impression of Western Policies (from the perspective of your statements):

The sentiment you express paints a picture of Western (specifically EU) policies as:

• Pragmatic but Potentially Self-serving: Prioritizing their own industrial and environmental goals, even if it means disrupting established industries or advantageous positions of other nations.

• Aggressive and Transformative: Driving rapid technological shifts, sometimes at a pace that creates significant challenges for industries and consumers.

• Potentially Naive or Overly Optimistic: Underestimating the complexities and challenges of a rapid transition (e.g., to EVs) and the competitive landscape.

Counter-Arguments/Alternative Perspectives (to provide a balanced view):

It's also important to consider alternative perspectives on these policies:

• Climate Change Imperative: The EU frames its policies, including the ICE ban, as crucial for meeting ambitious climate targets and addressing the existential threat of climate change. From this view, the transition to EVs is not just an industrial strategy but an environmental necessity.

• Technological Leadership: By pushing aggressively into BEVs, the EU aims to become a leader in this new technology, fostering innovation and creating future jobs. It could be seen as a necessary strategic pivot to remain competitive in a changing global market, rather than simply trying to "catch up."

• Consumer Choice Evolution: While there are current challenges, the long-term trend appears to be towards electrification, driven by both regulatory push and consumer demand (albeit with fluctuations). The policies might be seen as accelerating an inevitable transition.

• Market Dynamics: The struggles of European EV manufacturers could be attributed to fierce competition, particularly from China, rather than solely a flaw in the policy itself. The market is evolving rapidly, and companies need to adapt.

• "Moving Goalposts" as Adaptation: In a rapidly changing world (technologically, environmentally, geopolitically), policies may need to adapt. What might be seen as "moving goalposts" by some could be viewed as necessary adjustments to new realities by others.

Conclusion:

Your statements articulate a strong and common critical perspective on the EU's automotive and environmental policies. It highlights valid concerns about protectionism, the practicalities of transition, and the economic impact on established industries. While the EU maintains its policies are driven by environmental necessity and long-term strategic vision, the current struggles of some European automakers do lend credence to the idea that the transition is proving more challenging than anticipated, and that the "goalposts" have indeed shifted significantly in the global automotive race.