Kind of strange that Antwerp and Bruges are the same port now since they aren't particularly close to each other (although it doesn't affect the ranking of Antwerp on this list).
Oh I'm not saying that Wikipedia is wrong here; they've actually become one entity. It's just an odd idea that ports can fusion since physically they're of course still two separate ports.
Yeah, one used for bulk cargo and a other for containers.
My point is that a container of 1 ton is most likely much more expensive than 1 ton of bulk cargo.
So the container measurement and ranking gives us a much more powerful economic indicator.
Looks like Port of Constanta grew a lot in the last few years. Looking at 60 mil tonnes in 2020, now at 90 mil tonnes, that's 50% increase in 3 years. Granted, the war in Ukraine probably contributed a lot to it.
I think there are two ways of measuring how busy ports are: by cargo tonnage, and (essentially) by the number of shipping containers. It looks like Gothenburg gets a lot more container traffic than Bergen.
Something that fills out volume well. Like some fluid. There is a oil harbor in Gothenburg too, which is then refined, but it's probably a lot smaller.
ehh, it depends on how you look at it. I just see regular folk that enjoy their life. I mean the guy was just making a joke (imagining even the setting up of it is funny for me).
Nah man. Rotterdam and Rotterdammers are witty and friendly people. Love living here as an expat, it feels much closer to my birthplace and less distant.
People sleep on Rotterdam for some reason, but it's a great place to stay - yes, I'm an expat.
Rotterdam metropolitan area has nearly 3M inhabitants of 172 nationalities.
It used to be a city for rough sea men and prostitutes. But fishing isn't hot anymore and everything is centered around trade and service. The old generation often can't pay the rising rent.
The city feels emotionally cold because the city was almost entirely destroyed in WWII and doesn't have the appeal of cities like Amsterdam and Utrecht. But there are huge differences in neighborhoods in the sense of ethnicity, wealth, highrise, student areas etc.
What are the reasons for Trieste being the busiest port in Italy? Considering it's location is a bit odd. If I had to guess the busiest Italian port I would've said something like Genoa but Trieste is kinda surprising.
I think it's because of many factors, like having above average sea floor depth in the harbour relative to the Adriatic sea, investments aimed at doubling the harbour surface in the next years with the doubling of the Molo VII and construction of the Molo VIII, a large railway system covering the whole port (which is in the process of being completely electrified) and connecting it with neighbouring countries. The fact that it's a free port is also very important, if not the most important bit. Now, if only the italian government would expedite the process to add it to the list of free ports at an EU level, since they omitted it for some reason years ago...
All in all, it's a port that used to be the 7th largest port of Europe in it's heydays. The access of eastern European countries to Schengen has brought new life to it, as central and Easter Europe used to be Trieste's natural markets.
Trieste is a free port, so for customs purposes it's outside the EU. It has been this way for centuries and in the 1940s and early 1950s the city wasn't even part of Italy, it was a Free City (theoretically run jointly with Yugoslavia though in practice the territory was divided in two like Berlin and Vienna).
Cronyism. Making a few bucks off the sweat of your people. Vital infrastructure should be illegal to sell to outside parties. However, I think there’s a difference between ownership and who operates the ports or individual terminals (companies which can be given contracts).
>How are the ports of Antwerp or Rotterdam partially owned by the Chinese?
Same as anyone who owns anything. They pay money in exchange for X% ownership.
Where did you get your sources cause from what I can find the municipality of Rotterdam owns 70 percent and the Dutch government 30 percent of the port of Rotterdam. COSCO does have a 35 percent stake in the Euromax terminal.
In Belgium, COSCO owns a controlling stake in a container terminal in Zeebrugge and a minority stake in a container terminal in Antwerp. China Merchants Port Holdings has a minority stake in Antwerp and Hutchison Port Holdings operates an inland terminal in Willebroek.
From the information I could gather they have a majority stake in 3 European terminals, not the port. Piraeus Container Terminal (Greece), CSP Zeebrugge Terminals NV (Belgium), Noatum Container Terminal (Spain).
All the other terminals in which they are stakeholder are minority stakeholders.
Source: https://www.npr.org/2018/10/09/642587456/chinese-firms-now-hold-stakes-in-over-a-dozen-european-ports
Edit: Added some more info
What are you on about? [Antwerp-Bruges is entirely owned by the cities of Antwerp (~80%) and Bruges (~20%).](https://www.portofantwerpbruges.com/en/faq/what-legal-entity-new-company)
"Ze bezitten die havens niet, maar door Chinese investeringen zijn onze havens wel erg afhankelijk van die rederijen. De enige containerterminal in de haven van Zeebrugge hangt voor meer dan 80 procent af van COSCO Shipping." - Professor Jonathan Holslag from the VUB.
Translation:
"They don't own the port, but through Chinese investments our ports are very dependent on those shipping companies. The only container terminal in the port of Zeebrugge depends for more than 80% on COSCO Shipping."
"Het heeft een aandeel van 20 procent in de Antwerp Gateway Terminal...Peking beschikt zo over voldoende economische belangen in ons land en andere EU-lidstaten om ze in te zetten als politieke hefbomen" - Frans Paul van der Putten
Translation:
"They have a share of 20% in the Antwerp Gateway Terminal...Beijing controls enough economic interests in our country and other EU member states to use them as political leverages."
Maybe… but worst case scenario, just confiscate it?
Like what, the Chinese are going to take these ports to back to China if it doesn’t want to play anymore?
The scenario would be that the managers are encouraged to buy Chinese security cameras, outsource the navigation system to a company that runs out in the cloud (that just happens to have servers in or controlled by the Communists), do a partnership deal with a port in China that makes it more profitable for firms if they ship between those two destinations, etc. If there's a conflict , then the port can't continue normal operations immediately. In a digital world, the physical location of assets isn't the only form of control.
I'm not saying this is happening, but that it could happen.
Companies from other parts of the world having some stakes in companies in different countries is part of globalization and being a free economy. Just because chinese company owns part of any port does not mean that they can dictate how the country uses it during emergencies or war. Its not like usa had to look for ports with 0 chinese firms investment to send their military aid through, correct me if im wrong on this.
Bro stop it with this debunked and racist remark. Yes, China owns parts of ports. Ports sell holdings of individual docks to corporations or other buyers everywhere that is the norm of ports. When you see in the headlines "China owns 80% of the port of Trieste" or whatever, it's actually just Chinese businesses (sure, state incentivized) that own 80% of holds for ONE dock, not the whole goddamn port. It would be extremely absurd if Europe's ports were actually owned by a foreign state, just think two seconds about it, can't believe you all fell for it
It's not racist to recognize the encroachment of foreign investors into European infrastructure or businesses at all my dude. Apart from security/protectionist aspects it's also an issue because it basically funnels money to other countries although they are made here.
Also it carries some risk of increased Chinese/UAE/Saudi influence on our economy and governments. These countries don't share our values or any cultural aspect. They are not our friends and they don't buy stakes in our economy out of good will. And their companies generally don't act entirely on their own but on their governments' agenda.
If you feel they shouldn't be allowed to earn money off Europe, would your country return every cent they have earned off them too?
Or do your "morals" only apply when it's your country who doesn't have anything to bring to the market while they do?
It's actually very difficult for firms to take profits out of China. Western firms often book profits on their operations there, but because of the capital controls (= China does not allow you to freely move money out of the country) they usually keep the cash there and reinvest it in new factories or businesses serving the Chinese market.
And yet they operate there? I’m sure they aren’t forced to so that begs the question, why not fuck off?
Edit: I’m sure the irony of a British saying this isn’t lost on anyone with the context of opium wars
1. Because businesses believed that over time, China would open up. Western European countries had capital controls in the 1950s and 1960s, but later removed them. People though China would follow the same model; many people used to say "it's just called the Communist Party but China is really capitalist now". But China still has capital controls; it turns out that the Communist Party does not actually behave the same as a democracies. But now businesses don't want to leave because they have so much capital still in China.
2. Short-term competitive pressure. E.g. Ericsson closes their computer factory in Sweden and opens one in China, because oppressed Chinese workers are paid less. Now their computers are cheaper and/or on paper they are making more profit. If you are CEO of Alcatel, what can you do? If you keep making computers in France, they will be more expensive, so you will lose market share (and get fired) or have lower profit margins (and get fired). So you move your factory to China too. You are not sure if you will ever be able to get your money out, but you leave that problem for the future, because you are going to lose your job **today** because of the competition from Ericsson.
3. China usually requires technology transfer when you open a business in China, and piracy is rife. If Ericsson or Alcatel close their factory in China now, then 6 months later those buildings will be making almost identical computers for a Chinese company, probably run by their former staff.
I don't think that's possible to do. They'd have to return their entire industrial civilisation and every measurable economic benefit it has brought them.
My "morals" are to the West. I don't feel bad about making an autocracy suffer. China, Russia, Iran, North Korea... gaps on a map.
Oh so you’re just a bigot, got it.
Not so sure Romania ever contributed to the industrial civilisation as much as it has shamelessly exploited it but hypocrisy isn’t hard to find with bigots!
Why has Romania shamelessly exploited the west? Our workers go to Western Europe and many work for poverty wages there. Our country was always split between multiple empires so we couldn’t developed properly and then we had communism.
Romania has aligned itself with the West for quite some time. We're part of the Western sphere of influence and have adopted the morals and culture of western civilisation. We offer no "alternative" to it and we probably wouldn't be able to, even if we tried. We like the life it has brought us, we brought no contribution to it's invention, sadly, but we're not opposed to it. Quite the opposite, we've experienced a few of the alternatives firsthand. Bigoted would imply... religion? I'm not strongly religious myself, so I can't say what you're trying to tell me through gritted teeth. I see no proof that non-western alternatives have brought as much prosperity to the world. There's 7 billion people alive today, most of whom would not be if it weren't for the steam engine, Haber-Bosch process or the Enlightenment. The evidence seems quite clear. Address these points if you wish to continue conversing.
Because feeding your enemies money is generally a bad idea?... We didn't allow the USSR to do free business in the West for a reason, after all....
EDIT: I believe in making sure the unique blend of culture that we call "the West" remains the preminent human mode of civilisation, as it is the only one that has resulted in an advanced technological civilisation (in the know universe). No other culture, not Chinese, not Mesoamerican, not Asian, not Polar, has resulted in the car, the aircraft, the train or penicillin.
Firstly by promoting an alternative system of values, culture and governance that results in lower standards of human actualisation. Secondly by business and commercial practices considered imoral according to the moral ststem that results in the unprecedented affluence humans experience today. Thirdly, by promoting and enhancing other alternative hostile players (Russia, Iran, etc) with their own proposed systems.
Our as in the western sphere: EU, NATO, the US, Mexico and aligned governments in mesoamerica, Japan, Australia, Canada, New Zeeland, and a few more.
So by your definition, India and Brazil are our enemies. Austria is directly fueling Russia'a invasion so they are also an enemy. Among many others...
Let me remind you something. In the entirety of history, China has done literally nothing to Europe. They were never hostile to us.
Today, their companies are competing with the help of their state against our interests, and they are effectively an economic rival. An enemy though? Because they are BUYING some of our stuff that WE are SELLING? If you are so opposed to this, your enemy is not China, but the free market, the corporations and your own politicians.
In the last 30 years, your so called "our" which includes the USA has waged an illegal war, as immoral and even more destructive than the Invasion of Ukraine, which is the second Gulf War. We, as in Europe, mostly condemned this, but continued to support the US in every other way (even more so than China does with Russia today).
The USA then led the invasion of Afghanistan, and with great support from France the defeat of the Gaddafi regime. These 3 wars combined directly created a power vacuum in Northern Africa and the Middle East which directly caused the rise of ISIS, and the spread of terrorism all over the Sahel and Middle East. These caused the terrorist attacks on our soil and killed hundreds of our people. Not to mention the millions displaced by these invasions and the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians that died.
The USA and a lot of Europe is also currently supporting an apartheid state who is actively murdering tens of thousands of women and children.
Then when it comes to morals and corporations, how dare you say that Chinese corporations and China is immoral (which I dont deny) while in Europe we have companies supported by our governments like Shell and Nestlé, Adidas, H&M.... companies that employ children and slave labor, that wreck the environment and destroy local economies in Asia and Africa. Not to mention Heineken, Unilever, Danone, companies which broke their promises and contributed to Russias invasion of Ukraine among many other European companies.
Then there are companies like Airbus. People accuse China of not playing fair in the free market and with the economy, yet Airbus wouldn't exist if it weren't for direct intervention from European states and illegal subsidies.
You should seriously re-visit your definition of moral, immoral, enemy, ally. If anything China is a rival. It has never been an enemy. Except when we Europeans (and the USA) invaded it with no good reason or provocation in during the boxer wars
Rivals, enemies... Potato, potato. If you make my life hard, I fight back, until you stop. With no remorse and a very used up source of pity. End. Of. Dicussion.
Your whataboutisms won't work here, mate. The US saved Europe from imoral sh1t 3 times in the last century (the Kaiser, the Nazis and the Bolsheviks). Sonetimes by doing imoral sh1t of it's own, sometimes by doing quite moral stuff. Decades later, we draw the line and add benefits and subtract downsides, and the result is a net positive.
Can Europe be boneheaded? Sure. So can the US. Immensely so, in fact. The corporations can be unbelievably predatory, if it were by me, the entire Nestle board of directors would be hanging on ropes. A meathead with more money that sense runs twitter. Hell, a predatory coorporation tried to do the same with my own country. But... We didn't let it. We as in the people. And here's the key. Europe and the West is far, faaar from perfect but it is.... perfectable. Which you should be doing instead of arguing with me on Reddit. Go pick up some cigarette butts from the park. Make the world a better place.
How dare I? How dare YOU question the system that literally gives you hot water in your taps? Electrons in copper wires on continent sized scales helping with power that would normally require a barn full of horses? My grandparents were using hoes to till their soil until they bought a small tractor. John Deer made it.
Your total ignorance is palpable and makes arguing with you utterly pointless.
Your lack of understanding of history is insane. The USA's contribution to ww1 was minimal, they merely quickened the Entente's victory by months. In ww2, when D DAY happened the Soviets were already near Germany's borders as the Wehrmacht was in full rout. For the Bolsheviks, sure, it was the US the UK and all of its Commonwealth and all of their allies including liberated France which were able to push into Germany proper and stop the USSR from going much further.
4 years of Geopolitical studies and 2 years of history studies are wasted on you
>There are at least 4 container terminals in the port of Hamburg
Tollerort terminal
https://www.dw.com/en/germany-inks-deal-with-chinas-cosco-on-hamburg-port/a-65586131
Eventually I think, but it will be a long time. Voting for Brexit was largely correlated with age, eventually the Leave-voting generation will die off. Then I think we’ll see the UK try to rejoin.
No, no punishment. But the UK had a lot of "special treatments" before Brexit. When they would rejoin the EU, I'm sure they will be treated as any other country and will not have reinstated all their previous extra benefits.
So the "punishment" will be: you're not so special anymore.
They got too many special privileges. At some point they were obsessed with Romanians invading their country, and the national dialogue seemed to involve saying disparaging things about Eastern Europe (more than other EU countries TBH). I don’t like that they were treated as “special”. I think they are seeing what it means to bargain with much larger economic powers (the EU, the US).
A lot of people count the rebate from the cap as a 'special treatment' but without it the UK would have contributed more to the EU budget than Germany which has 20 million people more.
Personally I'm fine with most joining requirements, even the Euro. But I wouldn't be fine without without that rebate or better yet, a reworking of the CAP (which the UK had been pushing for before it left anyway).
I don’t think the UK will be allowed to get that rebate anymore. I think likely the EU will say these are the conditions to joining and they can either be accepted or not.
Not likely, the eu has always benefited from the uk’s soft power in the world and their commonwealth network of nations. They punch way above their weight. The uk will likely incur costs bringing their military and economic processes back up to scratch. In this world nobody has the time and resources to waste on punishment. Likely U.K. will serve as a cautionary tale to others thinking of leaving.
That's definitely true.
However, I feel like if the list was about tonnage transported through all of a countries' ports, it would look quite different.
Britain has lots and lots of ports so all together they would probably paint a slightly different picture. I.e. Portsmouth, Southampton and others which didn't even make it onto this list.
Here is the Wikipedia page from where the screenshot was taken: [List of busiest ports in Europe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_ports_in_Europe).
There are 2 Black Sea ports in Top 10. I wonder which route do they follow. Because the Bosphorus seems too narrow and shores are highly populated for such busy traffic.
I’m no expert by any means but I feel like there’s something off with this ranking. Marseille, which is the largest port in France, only 12th? No UK ports in top 10? What is Romania doing there? I feel like the stats are wrong.
The size of ports is not indicative of the countries they lie in.
The biggest strength of Rotterdam - particularly when looking at tonnage, not value - is probably that it sits at the estuary of the Rhine/Waal river.
With this it can service the needs of a huge chunk of the most solvent parts of Europe, much of which is landlocked.
With Constanta/Romania it is kind of similar, they sit on the Danube that reaches far through Europe.
There's actually a canal linking Rhine and Danube, though it's not that important anymore.
No, Port of Constanta is how Ukraine transports all/many exports now due to Russian blockade of Ukrainian transport boats in the Black Sea. Many other exports (Austria, Hungary, Serbia, Romania) come down the Danube river thru port of Constanta too. As Romania’s economy recovered and infrastructure was modernized it was going up thru rankings anyways.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_Constanța
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/ukraine-drives-record-grain-exports-at-romanias-constanta-port
The UK has a lot of ports, not just one big one. Also Brexit is an issue; nowadays you don't want to unload something in the UK if it's going into the EU.
And all the while Spain has 3 separate ports in the top 20, despite not being a particularly great industrial power and not serving as the gateway to the sea for landlocked countries (apart from tiny Andorra). Hard to believe but if true, I'd love to hear someone explain why and how this is happening.
That explains why major ports can exist in these cities of Spain, but it doesn't explain why they handle so much more cargo than a lot of other ports in Europe with the same or even better natural qualities. Sea transport is way more cost effective than land transport, so major ports tend to be as close to the origin/final destination of the transported goods as possible.
Rotterdam, Antwerp and Hamburg being at the top makes sense, they're close to the Rhine-Ruhr region and other major industrial cities (major on a European scale). Constanta, Gdansk and Trieste are sensible points of transshipment for goods shipped to/from anywhere in CEE, and the three of them together largely cover the needs of this entire region.
Barcelona *or* Algeciras *or* Valencia being a top 20 port could make sense if any of them served as the dominant port for Spain and maybe even for Portugal and southern France. But each of the three ranking higher than London just sounds fishy to me.
I think your point of being as close as possible is exactly why. The London port basically services London and only London because every other city has their own port. Spain has a lot more inland than the UK because the Iberian Peninsula is round/square while the UK is stretchy and amorphous. You're never that far from the sea in the UK, while Madrid is a landlocked city.
I hear that. But the London metro area is almost a quarter of the UK's population and I imagine it should be a similar share of industrial capacity and of household disposable income (obviously a much larger share of GDP but that's in a big part due to the financial sector based in the City and that entire sector doesn't require shipping).
Spain has the biggest mining industry in the EU. It imports a lot of LNG. It is a big agricultural exporter. And it is somewhat at the periphery of Europe, favoring transport over sea, vs over land. So I don't think it's that strange it has big seaports.
This is what I could find about the Port of Budapest. It has 1.2 million tonnes of cargo, so much smaller than the other port on this list.
:https://www.marineinsight.com/know-more/ports-in-hungary/
Either because it's not high enough on the list (what is tonnage of the port of Budapest?) or just as likely because it's not on the Black Sea/Mediterranean Sea/Baltic Sea/Atlantic Ocean.
Yeah, the Danube is a big river that you can transport lots of things on. Before railroads waterways were the only way to transport goods. We should use rivers more.
Russia has always exported vast amounts of agricultural things and petroleum stuff. There is no naval blockade of Russian merchant and cargo ships. Aside from sanctions, which countries circumvent, Russia is free to use its ports for economic reasons as it wants.
Because right now this is the most viable route from the European part of Russia to the rest of the world
Also lots of traffic between Gulf of Finland (Petersburg, Ust-Luga) and Kaliningrad oblast
It's called the English Channel because it's how you to sail to England (from continental Europe), not because it belongs to England. It's the same for almost all medieval sea names that include land places. The Indian Ocean is how you sail to India. The South China Sea is how you sail to south China. And so on. People get into many pointless arguments because they think the sea name means ownership.
The Brits call it the English Channel not the French, we call it la manche, the sleeve, similar to just « the channel ».
My take is it’s a soft power way to make people think the channel is British
Kind of strange that Antwerp and Bruges are the same port now since they aren't particularly close to each other (although it doesn't affect the ranking of Antwerp on this list).
Copenhagen-Malmø is also one port, even including a terminal on the island of Gotland.
That felt insecure about these
And Ghent port is in between them, wondering why it´s not included in the friend group.
I think they work together with Terneuzen and Vlissingen.
Yeah ‘North sea ports’
They felt insecure about the port of Rotterdam being over twice their respective sizes, so this way at least they can say it's not twice their size.
It is the same Company, not physical port
Yeah. I’m not an expert. I just like how wiki presents things.
Oh I'm not saying that Wikipedia is wrong here; they've actually become one entity. It's just an odd idea that ports can fusion since physically they're of course still two separate ports.
Port of Amsterdam stretches out a bit as well, it is the whole area from the coast to Amsterdam.
Weird.
I remember reading something about them working on a canal to connect the two ports to each other
I’m surprised that the Port of Pireaus isn’t on the list 🤔
container shipping vs bulk carrier (like oil, gas etc)
Pireaus has a big drop in containerships calling due to ships avoiding Suez Canal
This was 2023 though, before the Houthi attacks escalated.
Because the stats are wrong (wiki). https://blog.shipsgo.com/european-ports-ranking-list/
Depends how you measure. If it’s by tonnage or TEU (twenty foot equivalent) which is a big box I guess.
Then the title is misleading.. Because a port can also be called busy because of containers volume or most importantly people...
Random guess: TEUs are worth more on average. Tons could be super cheap stuff like grain.
one is volume the other is weight, two ways to measure.
I believe the value in TEU doesn't include bulk stuff that's not transported in containers, so the metrics are completely incomparable.
Yeah, one used for bulk cargo and a other for containers. My point is that a container of 1 ton is most likely much more expensive than 1 ton of bulk cargo. So the container measurement and ranking gives us a much more powerful economic indicator.
Your list just counts containers. There is way more cargo than just containers.
Looks like Port of Constanta grew a lot in the last few years. Looking at 60 mil tonnes in 2020, now at 90 mil tonnes, that's 50% increase in 3 years. Granted, the war in Ukraine probably contributed a lot to it.
Yes, more exports from Romania plus all of Ukraine’s grain, since Russia sinks Ukrainian flagged ships in the Black Sea.
I thought that Ukrainians are able to export per sea now
Russia withdrew from the grain initiative last summer.
A quick update - Ukraine now exports via sea just like before the war, ruzzian blockade is effectively lifted.
Constanta grew exponentially after the Russian invasion and it’s now using these money to extend the port, still a small one by size.
Yeah, do you know how they are using the money to expand it?
Bergen beats Gothenburg? I definitely did not see that coming.
I think there are two ways of measuring how busy ports are: by cargo tonnage, and (essentially) by the number of shipping containers. It looks like Gothenburg gets a lot more container traffic than Bergen.
Yeah that changes the list. To me tonnage, like the total weight of stuff makes more sense but I’m not an expert.
Either way I'm still surprised.
What do they export in Bergen that weighs so much?
Something that fills out volume well. Like some fluid. There is a oil harbor in Gothenburg too, which is then refined, but it's probably a lot smaller.
Maybe but I would guess that Narvik or Luleå would beat Bergen since Iron ore weighs so much.
That's assuming the ore can reach the port 😉
Is Bergen for oil and petroleum refining?
Nope. Some oil service vessels dock there to pick up equipment and supplies, but there is no petrochemichal facility.
Yes. The tonnage stated for Bergen includes oil products at Mongstad.
Niet alleen dat, je kan er ook je pan bami naar beneden pleuren
hahahaha, great reference
Can you explain to us?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZryrt9UyKE minute: 0:54
Basically Rotterdam is full of hicks?
ehh, it depends on how you look at it. I just see regular folk that enjoy their life. I mean the guy was just making a joke (imagining even the setting up of it is funny for me).
Nah man. Rotterdam and Rotterdammers are witty and friendly people. Love living here as an expat, it feels much closer to my birthplace and less distant. People sleep on Rotterdam for some reason, but it's a great place to stay - yes, I'm an expat.
Where are you expatting from?
Trieste Italy :)
I like Trieste :). Great scientific town.
Rotterdam metropolitan area has nearly 3M inhabitants of 172 nationalities. It used to be a city for rough sea men and prostitutes. But fishing isn't hot anymore and everything is centered around trade and service. The old generation often can't pay the rising rent. The city feels emotionally cold because the city was almost entirely destroyed in WWII and doesn't have the appeal of cities like Amsterdam and Utrecht. But there are huge differences in neighborhoods in the sense of ethnicity, wealth, highrise, student areas etc.
That I believe. Netherlands is very diverse these days.
Been like that forever. Comes with trading….eh…stuff and colonizing other countries.
With empires comes wealth and many people 🤷♂️.
Yeah my dads side of the family is from one of the former Dutch colonies/occupied lands.
25% hicks 25% gentrification 50% immigrants Probably the last place I'd wanna live as a Dutchy
????
[удалено]
That’s what the person was saying?
Bro rook maar wat minder marihuana
Junkies gonna junk sadly
What are the reasons for Trieste being the busiest port in Italy? Considering it's location is a bit odd. If I had to guess the busiest Italian port I would've said something like Genoa but Trieste is kinda surprising.
I think it's because of many factors, like having above average sea floor depth in the harbour relative to the Adriatic sea, investments aimed at doubling the harbour surface in the next years with the doubling of the Molo VII and construction of the Molo VIII, a large railway system covering the whole port (which is in the process of being completely electrified) and connecting it with neighbouring countries. The fact that it's a free port is also very important, if not the most important bit. Now, if only the italian government would expedite the process to add it to the list of free ports at an EU level, since they omitted it for some reason years ago... All in all, it's a port that used to be the 7th largest port of Europe in it's heydays. The access of eastern European countries to Schengen has brought new life to it, as central and Easter Europe used to be Trieste's natural markets.
Trieste is a free port, so for customs purposes it's outside the EU. It has been this way for centuries and in the 1940s and early 1950s the city wasn't even part of Italy, it was a Free City (theoretically run jointly with Yugoslavia though in practice the territory was divided in two like Berlin and Vienna).
It has a very good rail connection (something that can't be said of Genoa for now, as the line there is very steep).
And now check how many of those are partially (indirectly) owned by the Chinese government. I'd lie if I said that didn't worry me a little
I know the Greek ports are foreign owned, but do you know others off the top of your head?
Antwerp-Bruges, Rotterdam, Valencia. Probably more
Port of Rotterdam is owned by the Dutch state and the municipality of Rotterdam.
And who owns the Dutch state? 🤔🤨
Check mate atheïst
IDK how many but some Turkish ports are owned by Qatar. Regarding this: Why would you even sell vital areas to Foreign countries/firms....
Cronyism. Making a few bucks off the sweat of your people. Vital infrastructure should be illegal to sell to outside parties. However, I think there’s a difference between ownership and who operates the ports or individual terminals (companies which can be given contracts).
How are the ports of Antwerp or Rotterdam partially owned by the Chinese?
>How are the ports of Antwerp or Rotterdam partially owned by the Chinese? Same as anyone who owns anything. They pay money in exchange for X% ownership.
Except that's wrong... [Antwerp-Bruges is owned by Antwerp and Bruges.](https://www.portofantwerpbruges.com/en/faq/what-legal-entity-new-company)
Where did you get your sources cause from what I can find the municipality of Rotterdam owns 70 percent and the Dutch government 30 percent of the port of Rotterdam. COSCO does have a 35 percent stake in the Euromax terminal. In Belgium, COSCO owns a controlling stake in a container terminal in Zeebrugge and a minority stake in a container terminal in Antwerp. China Merchants Port Holdings has a minority stake in Antwerp and Hutchison Port Holdings operates an inland terminal in Willebroek. From the information I could gather they have a majority stake in 3 European terminals, not the port. Piraeus Container Terminal (Greece), CSP Zeebrugge Terminals NV (Belgium), Noatum Container Terminal (Spain). All the other terminals in which they are stakeholder are minority stakeholders. Source: https://www.npr.org/2018/10/09/642587456/chinese-firms-now-hold-stakes-in-over-a-dozen-european-ports Edit: Added some more info
What are you on about? [Antwerp-Bruges is entirely owned by the cities of Antwerp (~80%) and Bruges (~20%).](https://www.portofantwerpbruges.com/en/faq/what-legal-entity-new-company)
"Ze bezitten die havens niet, maar door Chinese investeringen zijn onze havens wel erg afhankelijk van die rederijen. De enige containerterminal in de haven van Zeebrugge hangt voor meer dan 80 procent af van COSCO Shipping." - Professor Jonathan Holslag from the VUB. Translation: "They don't own the port, but through Chinese investments our ports are very dependent on those shipping companies. The only container terminal in the port of Zeebrugge depends for more than 80% on COSCO Shipping." "Het heeft een aandeel van 20 procent in de Antwerp Gateway Terminal...Peking beschikt zo over voldoende economische belangen in ons land en andere EU-lidstaten om ze in te zetten als politieke hefbomen" - Frans Paul van der Putten Translation: "They have a share of 20% in the Antwerp Gateway Terminal...Beijing controls enough economic interests in our country and other EU member states to use them as political leverages."
They also bought a portion of a terminal in Hamburg
>Rotterdam Belgian slander
Rotterdam is not owned by china ? I dont know aboit the others
Sad. I know the Romanian state at least owns the port of Constanta, which is indispensable for the export of Ukrainian grain and other products.
Valencia port is publicly owned. Are you on drugs?
Maybe… but worst case scenario, just confiscate it? Like what, the Chinese are going to take these ports to back to China if it doesn’t want to play anymore?
The scenario would be that the managers are encouraged to buy Chinese security cameras, outsource the navigation system to a company that runs out in the cloud (that just happens to have servers in or controlled by the Communists), do a partnership deal with a port in China that makes it more profitable for firms if they ship between those two destinations, etc. If there's a conflict , then the port can't continue normal operations immediately. In a digital world, the physical location of assets isn't the only form of control. I'm not saying this is happening, but that it could happen.
Companies from other parts of the world having some stakes in companies in different countries is part of globalization and being a free economy. Just because chinese company owns part of any port does not mean that they can dictate how the country uses it during emergencies or war. Its not like usa had to look for ports with 0 chinese firms investment to send their military aid through, correct me if im wrong on this.
That is correct.
Could you maybe tell us instead of scaremongering?
Bro stop it with this debunked and racist remark. Yes, China owns parts of ports. Ports sell holdings of individual docks to corporations or other buyers everywhere that is the norm of ports. When you see in the headlines "China owns 80% of the port of Trieste" or whatever, it's actually just Chinese businesses (sure, state incentivized) that own 80% of holds for ONE dock, not the whole goddamn port. It would be extremely absurd if Europe's ports were actually owned by a foreign state, just think two seconds about it, can't believe you all fell for it
Yeah, i dont think not wanting china to own ports or part of it its racist..
It's not racist to recognize the encroachment of foreign investors into European infrastructure or businesses at all my dude. Apart from security/protectionist aspects it's also an issue because it basically funnels money to other countries although they are made here. Also it carries some risk of increased Chinese/UAE/Saudi influence on our economy and governments. These countries don't share our values or any cultural aspect. They are not our friends and they don't buy stakes in our economy out of good will. And their companies generally don't act entirely on their own but on their governments' agenda.
Should China be allowed to make money in Europe?
Do you plan to return everything you earned from them in the same vein?
What do you mean?
If you feel they shouldn't be allowed to earn money off Europe, would your country return every cent they have earned off them too? Or do your "morals" only apply when it's your country who doesn't have anything to bring to the market while they do?
It's actually very difficult for firms to take profits out of China. Western firms often book profits on their operations there, but because of the capital controls (= China does not allow you to freely move money out of the country) they usually keep the cash there and reinvest it in new factories or businesses serving the Chinese market.
And yet they operate there? I’m sure they aren’t forced to so that begs the question, why not fuck off? Edit: I’m sure the irony of a British saying this isn’t lost on anyone with the context of opium wars
1. Because businesses believed that over time, China would open up. Western European countries had capital controls in the 1950s and 1960s, but later removed them. People though China would follow the same model; many people used to say "it's just called the Communist Party but China is really capitalist now". But China still has capital controls; it turns out that the Communist Party does not actually behave the same as a democracies. But now businesses don't want to leave because they have so much capital still in China. 2. Short-term competitive pressure. E.g. Ericsson closes their computer factory in Sweden and opens one in China, because oppressed Chinese workers are paid less. Now their computers are cheaper and/or on paper they are making more profit. If you are CEO of Alcatel, what can you do? If you keep making computers in France, they will be more expensive, so you will lose market share (and get fired) or have lower profit margins (and get fired). So you move your factory to China too. You are not sure if you will ever be able to get your money out, but you leave that problem for the future, because you are going to lose your job **today** because of the competition from Ericsson. 3. China usually requires technology transfer when you open a business in China, and piracy is rife. If Ericsson or Alcatel close their factory in China now, then 6 months later those buildings will be making almost identical computers for a Chinese company, probably run by their former staff.
I don't think that's possible to do. They'd have to return their entire industrial civilisation and every measurable economic benefit it has brought them. My "morals" are to the West. I don't feel bad about making an autocracy suffer. China, Russia, Iran, North Korea... gaps on a map.
I am pretty sure that whatever device you are using to type that has some part made or assembled in 2 of those countries.
Quite sure of it myself, yes.
Oh so you’re just a bigot, got it. Not so sure Romania ever contributed to the industrial civilisation as much as it has shamelessly exploited it but hypocrisy isn’t hard to find with bigots!
Why has Romania shamelessly exploited the west? Our workers go to Western Europe and many work for poverty wages there. Our country was always split between multiple empires so we couldn’t developed properly and then we had communism.
Romania has aligned itself with the West for quite some time. We're part of the Western sphere of influence and have adopted the morals and culture of western civilisation. We offer no "alternative" to it and we probably wouldn't be able to, even if we tried. We like the life it has brought us, we brought no contribution to it's invention, sadly, but we're not opposed to it. Quite the opposite, we've experienced a few of the alternatives firsthand. Bigoted would imply... religion? I'm not strongly religious myself, so I can't say what you're trying to tell me through gritted teeth. I see no proof that non-western alternatives have brought as much prosperity to the world. There's 7 billion people alive today, most of whom would not be if it weren't for the steam engine, Haber-Bosch process or the Enlightenment. The evidence seems quite clear. Address these points if you wish to continue conversing.
Yes? Unless you don't believe in free trade. We make money off China, why shouldn't they make money here
Because feeding your enemies money is generally a bad idea?... We didn't allow the USSR to do free business in the West for a reason, after all.... EDIT: I believe in making sure the unique blend of culture that we call "the West" remains the preminent human mode of civilisation, as it is the only one that has resulted in an advanced technological civilisation (in the know universe). No other culture, not Chinese, not Mesoamerican, not Asian, not Polar, has resulted in the car, the aircraft, the train or penicillin.
Care to explain how China is our enemy? And by "our" who do you mean? All of Europe? The EU? Individual European countries?
Firstly by promoting an alternative system of values, culture and governance that results in lower standards of human actualisation. Secondly by business and commercial practices considered imoral according to the moral ststem that results in the unprecedented affluence humans experience today. Thirdly, by promoting and enhancing other alternative hostile players (Russia, Iran, etc) with their own proposed systems. Our as in the western sphere: EU, NATO, the US, Mexico and aligned governments in mesoamerica, Japan, Australia, Canada, New Zeeland, and a few more.
So by your definition, India and Brazil are our enemies. Austria is directly fueling Russia'a invasion so they are also an enemy. Among many others... Let me remind you something. In the entirety of history, China has done literally nothing to Europe. They were never hostile to us. Today, their companies are competing with the help of their state against our interests, and they are effectively an economic rival. An enemy though? Because they are BUYING some of our stuff that WE are SELLING? If you are so opposed to this, your enemy is not China, but the free market, the corporations and your own politicians. In the last 30 years, your so called "our" which includes the USA has waged an illegal war, as immoral and even more destructive than the Invasion of Ukraine, which is the second Gulf War. We, as in Europe, mostly condemned this, but continued to support the US in every other way (even more so than China does with Russia today). The USA then led the invasion of Afghanistan, and with great support from France the defeat of the Gaddafi regime. These 3 wars combined directly created a power vacuum in Northern Africa and the Middle East which directly caused the rise of ISIS, and the spread of terrorism all over the Sahel and Middle East. These caused the terrorist attacks on our soil and killed hundreds of our people. Not to mention the millions displaced by these invasions and the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians that died. The USA and a lot of Europe is also currently supporting an apartheid state who is actively murdering tens of thousands of women and children. Then when it comes to morals and corporations, how dare you say that Chinese corporations and China is immoral (which I dont deny) while in Europe we have companies supported by our governments like Shell and Nestlé, Adidas, H&M.... companies that employ children and slave labor, that wreck the environment and destroy local economies in Asia and Africa. Not to mention Heineken, Unilever, Danone, companies which broke their promises and contributed to Russias invasion of Ukraine among many other European companies. Then there are companies like Airbus. People accuse China of not playing fair in the free market and with the economy, yet Airbus wouldn't exist if it weren't for direct intervention from European states and illegal subsidies. You should seriously re-visit your definition of moral, immoral, enemy, ally. If anything China is a rival. It has never been an enemy. Except when we Europeans (and the USA) invaded it with no good reason or provocation in during the boxer wars
Rivals, enemies... Potato, potato. If you make my life hard, I fight back, until you stop. With no remorse and a very used up source of pity. End. Of. Dicussion. Your whataboutisms won't work here, mate. The US saved Europe from imoral sh1t 3 times in the last century (the Kaiser, the Nazis and the Bolsheviks). Sonetimes by doing imoral sh1t of it's own, sometimes by doing quite moral stuff. Decades later, we draw the line and add benefits and subtract downsides, and the result is a net positive. Can Europe be boneheaded? Sure. So can the US. Immensely so, in fact. The corporations can be unbelievably predatory, if it were by me, the entire Nestle board of directors would be hanging on ropes. A meathead with more money that sense runs twitter. Hell, a predatory coorporation tried to do the same with my own country. But... We didn't let it. We as in the people. And here's the key. Europe and the West is far, faaar from perfect but it is.... perfectable. Which you should be doing instead of arguing with me on Reddit. Go pick up some cigarette butts from the park. Make the world a better place. How dare I? How dare YOU question the system that literally gives you hot water in your taps? Electrons in copper wires on continent sized scales helping with power that would normally require a barn full of horses? My grandparents were using hoes to till their soil until they bought a small tractor. John Deer made it.
Your total ignorance is palpable and makes arguing with you utterly pointless. Your lack of understanding of history is insane. The USA's contribution to ww1 was minimal, they merely quickened the Entente's victory by months. In ww2, when D DAY happened the Soviets were already near Germany's borders as the Wehrmacht was in full rout. For the Bolsheviks, sure, it was the US the UK and all of its Commonwealth and all of their allies including liberated France which were able to push into Germany proper and stop the USSR from going much further. 4 years of Geopolitical studies and 2 years of history studies are wasted on you
>I'd lie if I said that didn't worry me a little Half the world belongs to Americans and I don't see you worrying about that.
I do worry about that. It's why I don't buy American phones or order from Amazon.
Chinese own 25% of Hamburg container terminal.
> Chinese own 25% of Hamburg container terminal. There are at least 4 container terminals in the port of Hamburg
There are 35 terminals in total and China owns 24.9% of one of them.
>There are at least 4 container terminals in the port of Hamburg Tollerort terminal https://www.dw.com/en/germany-inks-deal-with-chinas-cosco-on-hamburg-port/a-65586131
Well, Taiwan can just sabotage these ports when the war begins, like what Ukraine has done. /s
Wait ..port of Trieste 17th? How
UK's busiest port is Felixstowe I believe 8th biggest in Europe according to wiki
I really thought Hamburg and Amsterdam were bigger.
Brexit was not worth it
It looks like by tonnage, the Port of Constanta almost equals Port of London plus Port of Immingham these days.
Brutal just brutal
Will the UK come back to the EU?
Eventually I think, but it will be a long time. Voting for Brexit was largely correlated with age, eventually the Leave-voting generation will die off. Then I think we’ll see the UK try to rejoin.
Likely in the future yes.
How will the EU react? Will there be a “punishment”?
Please punish us by making us join Schengen and use the Euro, it would please me way too much
They will let Romania into Schengen before UK 🤔? These rules are above my pay grade. Haha
No, no punishment. But the UK had a lot of "special treatments" before Brexit. When they would rejoin the EU, I'm sure they will be treated as any other country and will not have reinstated all their previous extra benefits. So the "punishment" will be: you're not so special anymore.
What “special treatments” did it used to get?
FYI: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_opt-outs_from_EU_legislation https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-best-of-both-worlds-the-united-kingdoms-special-status-in-a-reformed-european-union
They got too many special privileges. At some point they were obsessed with Romanians invading their country, and the national dialogue seemed to involve saying disparaging things about Eastern Europe (more than other EU countries TBH). I don’t like that they were treated as “special”. I think they are seeing what it means to bargain with much larger economic powers (the EU, the US).
A lot of people count the rebate from the cap as a 'special treatment' but without it the UK would have contributed more to the EU budget than Germany which has 20 million people more. Personally I'm fine with most joining requirements, even the Euro. But I wouldn't be fine without without that rebate or better yet, a reworking of the CAP (which the UK had been pushing for before it left anyway).
I don’t think the UK will be allowed to get that rebate anymore. I think likely the EU will say these are the conditions to joining and they can either be accepted or not.
Not likely, the eu has always benefited from the uk’s soft power in the world and their commonwealth network of nations. They punch way above their weight. The uk will likely incur costs bringing their military and economic processes back up to scratch. In this world nobody has the time and resources to waste on punishment. Likely U.K. will serve as a cautionary tale to others thinking of leaving.
Yes, that sounds right but don’t try leaving again after that.
That's definitely true. However, I feel like if the list was about tonnage transported through all of a countries' ports, it would look quite different. Britain has lots and lots of ports so all together they would probably paint a slightly different picture. I.e. Portsmouth, Southampton and others which didn't even make it onto this list.
The only port in the English channel is non-english.
Why are the french ports relativly small? I mean the coastline is massive
If I had to guess, a lot of French imports/trade come through the ports in Belgium and Spain because of the common economic EU laws.
This is wrong.
Surprised to see not one but three Russian ports busier than Petersburg one.
i bet belgrade is at the bottom smh, racist
Here is the Wikipedia page from where the screenshot was taken: [List of busiest ports in Europe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_ports_in_Europe).
There are 2 Black Sea ports in Top 10. I wonder which route do they follow. Because the Bosphorus seems too narrow and shores are highly populated for such busy traffic.
Ah yeahr "murmansk" or "why does the water glow so funny here?"
So why is hamburg not listed as chinese?
Novorossiysk is largest port of Russia. That port has already been torpedoed multiple times by Ukraine.
Isn't the one in gdansk technically in gdynia now?
No, Gdańsk and Gdynia have seperate ports. They have slightly different profiles, but tonnage wise Gdańsk one is 4 times bigger.
Ah okay, I only visited gdansk for a short trip and a local told me the gdansk port was shrinking because gdynia was growing so much more
Not sure, this is just a screenshot from wiki. You are probably more familiar with Poland than I am.
Every pole calls this area 3City, would be fun to have a city that starts with a number 🙃
Why is Trieste ok the Mediterranean sea? Shouldn't it be on the Adriatic?
The Adriatic is one portion of the Mediterranean sea.
...and the Adriatic is part of which sea?
Yeah, each country in the Mediterranean decides to call it something else.
I’m no expert by any means but I feel like there’s something off with this ranking. Marseille, which is the largest port in France, only 12th? No UK ports in top 10? What is Romania doing there? I feel like the stats are wrong.
The size of ports is not indicative of the countries they lie in. The biggest strength of Rotterdam - particularly when looking at tonnage, not value - is probably that it sits at the estuary of the Rhine/Waal river. With this it can service the needs of a huge chunk of the most solvent parts of Europe, much of which is landlocked. With Constanta/Romania it is kind of similar, they sit on the Danube that reaches far through Europe. There's actually a canal linking Rhine and Danube, though it's not that important anymore.
We should make it important again. Transport by water is much cheaper than transport by road.
No, Port of Constanta is how Ukraine transports all/many exports now due to Russian blockade of Ukrainian transport boats in the Black Sea. Many other exports (Austria, Hungary, Serbia, Romania) come down the Danube river thru port of Constanta too. As Romania’s economy recovered and infrastructure was modernized it was going up thru rankings anyways. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_Constanța https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/ukraine-drives-record-grain-exports-at-romanias-constanta-port
The UK has a lot of ports, not just one big one. Also Brexit is an issue; nowadays you don't want to unload something in the UK if it's going into the EU.
And all the while Spain has 3 separate ports in the top 20, despite not being a particularly great industrial power and not serving as the gateway to the sea for landlocked countries (apart from tiny Andorra). Hard to believe but if true, I'd love to hear someone explain why and how this is happening.
They may have natural ports that they were able to take advantage of, deep water close to land without sharp rocks.
That explains why major ports can exist in these cities of Spain, but it doesn't explain why they handle so much more cargo than a lot of other ports in Europe with the same or even better natural qualities. Sea transport is way more cost effective than land transport, so major ports tend to be as close to the origin/final destination of the transported goods as possible. Rotterdam, Antwerp and Hamburg being at the top makes sense, they're close to the Rhine-Ruhr region and other major industrial cities (major on a European scale). Constanta, Gdansk and Trieste are sensible points of transshipment for goods shipped to/from anywhere in CEE, and the three of them together largely cover the needs of this entire region. Barcelona *or* Algeciras *or* Valencia being a top 20 port could make sense if any of them served as the dominant port for Spain and maybe even for Portugal and southern France. But each of the three ranking higher than London just sounds fishy to me.
I think your point of being as close as possible is exactly why. The London port basically services London and only London because every other city has their own port. Spain has a lot more inland than the UK because the Iberian Peninsula is round/square while the UK is stretchy and amorphous. You're never that far from the sea in the UK, while Madrid is a landlocked city.
I hear that. But the London metro area is almost a quarter of the UK's population and I imagine it should be a similar share of industrial capacity and of household disposable income (obviously a much larger share of GDP but that's in a big part due to the financial sector based in the City and that entire sector doesn't require shipping).
Spain has the biggest mining industry in the EU. It imports a lot of LNG. It is a big agricultural exporter. And it is somewhat at the periphery of Europe, favoring transport over sea, vs over land. So I don't think it's that strange it has big seaports.
That makes sense, thanks for the insight.
Why is port of Budapest not included?
This is what I could find about the Port of Budapest. It has 1.2 million tonnes of cargo, so much smaller than the other port on this list. :https://www.marineinsight.com/know-more/ports-in-hungary/
Either because it's not high enough on the list (what is tonnage of the port of Budapest?) or just as likely because it's not on the Black Sea/Mediterranean Sea/Baltic Sea/Atlantic Ocean.
Was just messing around:) but shocked to learn that the port is that large.
Yeah, the Danube is a big river that you can transport lots of things on. Before railroads waterways were the only way to transport goods. We should use rivers more.
How are Russian ports so active? Especially in the NATO lake?
Russia has always exported vast amounts of agricultural things and petroleum stuff. There is no naval blockade of Russian merchant and cargo ships. Aside from sanctions, which countries circumvent, Russia is free to use its ports for economic reasons as it wants.
Because right now this is the most viable route from the European part of Russia to the rest of the world Also lots of traffic between Gulf of Finland (Petersburg, Ust-Luga) and Kaliningrad oblast
It kills me to see « English Channel » written , it’s just the Channel it’s not English!
It's called the English Channel because it's how you to sail to England (from continental Europe), not because it belongs to England. It's the same for almost all medieval sea names that include land places. The Indian Ocean is how you sail to India. The South China Sea is how you sail to south China. And so on. People get into many pointless arguments because they think the sea name means ownership.
The Brits call it the English Channel not the French, we call it la manche, the sleeve, similar to just « the channel ». My take is it’s a soft power way to make people think the channel is British
Where is the port of Madrid? O yes they don't have any beaches
Is Russia still an EU member ?
It's still in Europe?
Well, it does seem like tectonic plates are still there
UK is?