Andy Palmer, former Aston Martin CEO and a key architect of the Nissan Leaf, has criticized automakers relying on hybrids instead of fully transitioning to electric vehicles (EVs), calling it a “fool’s errand” that risks leaving them behind as Chinese companies dominate the EV market.

Palmer, who led the development of the Nissan Leaf—the world’s first mass-market electric car—believes automakers sticking to hybrids will struggle to compete as the industry moves towards fully electric options.

“Hybrids are a road to hell,” Palmer told Business Insider. “They are a transition strategy, and the longer you stay on that transition, the less quickly you ramp up into the new world.”

Palmer, who served as Nissan’s Chief Operating Officer, said that while hybrids might appear to offer a safer bet as EV adoption slows, the strategy would ultimately render companies uncompetitive for longer. He warned that delaying the switch to EVs would allow Chinese automakers to solidify their lead, particularly as they ramp up international expansion.

“If you just delay transitioning to EVs by diluting it with hybrids, then you are more uncompetitive for longer, and you allow the Chinese to continue to develop their market and their leadership,” Palmer added.

China’s EV Market: A Well-Oiled Machine

China’s dominance in the EV market is no accident. Palmer pointed to the Chinese government’s strategic focus on “new energy vehicles,” which has included an estimated $230 billion in subsidies for EV makers since 2009. Automakers like BYD have leveraged this support to become formidable players, offering a mix of affordable and high-tech EVs and hybrids that are now gaining traction abroad.

“The Chinese cars are bloody good. The Chinese vehicles offer remarkable value for money for what they deliver,” Palmer said, highlighting their advanced battery technology and focus on software.

Palmer, who sat on the board of Dongfeng Motor Company, a joint venture between Nissan and China’s state-owned Dongfeng, witnessed firsthand the aggressive industrial strategy that helped propel Chinese EV makers to the forefront of the global market.

“It starts with an industrial strategy. That’s the big thing to learn. For the best part of 14 years, we have not had an industrial strategy,” Palmer noted, comparing the West’s lack of a coordinated approach to China’s long-term planning.

Tariffs, A Counterproductive Measure

In response to China’s growing influence, both the U.S. and Europe have imposed tariffs aimed at protecting their domestic auto industries. However, Palmer argued that tariffs would only serve to weaken Western automakers’ competitiveness.

“My experience with tariffs is it just makes your indigenous industry lazy. The gap becomes even bigger,” he said, suggesting that a “survival of the fittest” mentality would better prepare Western automakers for the coming battle with Chinese brands, especially in Europe.

“I think the Chinese firms will learn from competing in Europe, because that’s the toughest market in the world. If they can do that, then they’re going to be unbeatable,” he added.

Japanese Automakers on the Back Foot

The rise of Chinese EV companies has put immense pressure on Japanese automakers, including Palmer’s former employer, Nissan, as well as Toyota and Honda.

Nissan recently announced plans to lay off 9,000 workers, while Toyota and Honda struggle with declining sales in China and reduced profits. Reports of merger talks between Nissan and Honda underscore the severity of the situation.

Palmer said that while Toyota initially reaped rewards by focusing on hybrids, this strategy left the company vulnerable as markets like China moved rapidly towards EVs.

“Toyota took the Japanese industry down a cul-de-sac, which it is going to struggle to recover from,” he said.

He also criticized Nissan’s leadership for failing to capitalize on the early success of the Leaf, which has sold over half a million units since its 2010 launch.

“Nissan finds itself now with a very poor lineup of products and without obvious leadership in EVs, and that’s the direct result of poor management,” Palmer remarked.

Breaking the EV Adoption Barrier

While EV sales are still growing, adoption has been slower than expected, prompting automakers to scale back investments. Palmer attributes this hesitation to the high cost of EVs.

“Prices have got to align to those of internal combustion engines. And to make that happen, you’ve got to be able to offer cars with smaller batteries,” Palmer said. He emphasized the need for governments to support charging infrastructure to ease consumer concerns about range.

The average EV price in the U.S. in October was $56,902, compared to $48,623 for traditional gas-powered cars, according to Kelley Blue Book. Bridging this price gap could help accelerate EV adoption.

Learning from China

Palmer urged Western automakers and governments to adopt elements of China’s industrial strategy, particularly in the battery sector. China currently dominates the EV battery supply chain, including critical mineral processing and cell manufacturing.

“If the West wants to catch up, I would advocate copying the Chinese,” he said. “The alternative is everything is Chinese at the moment—even if you were building your own battery cells, you’ve still got to get all the minerals from China. The whole supply chain is stuck.”

Palmer’s cautionary tale is not just for Japanese automakers but for any company hoping to compete in the global EV market. The hesitation to fully commit to EVs in favor of hybrids, he argues, is a strategy that will only deepen the competitive disadvantage against well-positioned Chinese manufacturers.

The US government has reignited its push to break up Google, with the Department of Justice (DOJ) on Friday reaffirming its demand that the tech giant sell off its popular Chrome browser to restore competition in the digital marketplace.

This latest move adds new urgency to the long-running antitrust battle against Google, which was found last year to have maintained an illegal monopoly over internet search.

The DOJ’s renewed call for a breakup is part of a broader strategy to address what it described as Google’s “economic goliath” status, accusing the company of leveraging its market dominance to stifle competition and harm consumers.

“Google’s illegal conduct has created an economic goliath, one that wreaks havoc over the marketplace to ensure that — no matter what occurs — Google always wins. American consumers and businesses suffer from Google’s conduct,” the DOJ stated in a court filing.

National Security Concerns in the Mix

In its defense, Google has previously argued that breaking up its business could have serious national security implications. The company claims that its integration of search, browser, and artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities enhances its ability to safeguard data and thwart cybersecurity threats.

Google spokesperson Peter Schottenfels reiterated this stance, suggesting that the DOJ’s proposals are not only excessive but also potentially harmful to national interests.

“DOJ’s sweeping proposals continue to go miles beyond the Court’s decision, and would harm America’s consumers, economy, and national security,” Schottenfels said.

Google has maintained that separating its browser business from its search engine could make the internet ecosystem more vulnerable to exploitation by malicious actors. The company argues that its robust infrastructure, which tightly integrates search with other services, provides a unique defense against threats.

A Changing Search Landscape

The DOJ’s latest push for a Google breakup comes as competition in the search market begins to heat up. OpenAI, the AI research lab behind the popular chatbot ChatGPT, recently introduced a search feature, allowing users to access real-time web information directly through its AI tool.

The introduction of search capabilities by OpenAI has been seen by many as a potential challenge to Google’s dominance. Some experts believe that if OpenAI’s search tool gains traction among its millions of chatbot users, it could begin to chip away at Google’s hold on the search market.

However, Google’s dominance in the web search market remains formidable, with over 90% of market share. This entrenched position presents a significant barrier for new entrants, including OpenAI, which would need to not only innovate but also overcome the deep integration of Google’s search services across devices, browsers, and platforms.

The DOJ’s Strategy

The DOJ has suggested that a forced sale of Chrome could help level the playing field, giving rival search engines better access to a browser that serves as a “gateway to the internet” for many users. In addition to divesting Chrome, the DOJ proposed requiring Google to implement a “choice screen” on its browsers, allowing users to select their preferred search engine when no default is set.

This choice screen strategy mirrors a similar measure adopted in Europe, where regulators required Google to present Android users with a selection of search engines. While the approach saw some success in boosting competition, it did not significantly dent Google’s market share.

The DOJ’s latest proposal maintained most of the remedies suggested during the Biden administration, though it softened its stance in some areas. For instance, the government is no longer demanding the divestiture of Google’s artificial intelligence investments, which could indicate a more targeted focus on the search and browser markets.

Google’s Countermeasures

In response to the DOJ’s demands, Google has proposed restructuring its business contracts with mobile device manufacturers and wireless carriers. The company also intends to appeal the antitrust ruling by Judge Amit Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Google argues that its business practices benefit consumers by providing faster, more relevant search results and that breaking up the company would create confusion and reduce the quality of Internet services. The tech giant contends that rather than protecting competition, a forced divestiture of Chrome could fragment the browser market and undermine user experiences.

Growing Pressure on Big Tech

A potential breakup of Google would mark one of the most significant antitrust actions in U.S. history, setting a precedent that could impact other tech behemoths such as Meta, Amazon, and Apple. These companies have also faced scrutiny over their market dominance and business practices.

Should the Trump administration’s push succeed, it could embolden regulators both domestically and internationally to pursue more aggressive actions against monopolistic practices in the tech sector. The European Union, which has already fined Google billions for anti-competitive behavior, might take further steps to curb its dominance.

The April court hearing will be a critical juncture in this battle, with both Google and the DOJ presenting their arguments on how best to address concerns over market competition.

After weeks of distancing the U.S. from the Ukraine conflict, President Donald Trump on Friday threatened to impose expanded “large-scale” sanctions and tariffs on Russia until a peace agreement is reached with Ukraine.

“Based on the fact that Russia is absolutely ‘pounding’ Ukraine on the battlefield right now, I am strongly considering large scale Banking Sanctions, Sanctions, and Tariffs on Russia until a Cease Fire and FINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PEACE IS REACHED. To Russia and Ukraine, get to the table right now, before it is too late. Thank you!!!” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

The shift in Trump’s rhetoric comes after an intense Oval Office confrontation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy last week. The meeting, which ended with the collapse of a potential rare earth minerals deal, stoked concerns that U.S. policy toward Russia was softening. European allies have since scrambled to assess how a potential withdrawal of U.S. support might reshape the geopolitical landscape.

From Criticism to Threats of Sanctions

In recent weeks, Trump has repeatedly criticized Zelenskyy, and his administration announced a pause on military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine. However, Friday’s announcement marked a departure from his earlier stance, with threats of sanctions that could significantly pressure the Russian economy.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, speaking at the Economic Club of New York on Thursday, hinted at a robust sanctions strategy. “Per President Trump’s guidance, sanctions will be used explicitly and aggressively for immediate maximum impact,” Bessent said. He added that the administration is prepared to go “all in” to use sanctions as leverage in peace negotiations.

Bessent accused the previous Biden administration of imposing “weak sanctions” on Russia’s energy sector, arguing that Biden’s approach allowed Russia to continue financing its war efforts. He claimed that Biden was hesitant to enforce stronger measures due to concerns over rising U.S. energy prices during an election year.

He also suggested that the Biden administration had lifted sanctions on Russia in January, though no clear evidence supports this assertion. Instead, in the final days of Biden’s presidency, sweeping sanctions were implemented against Russia’s energy sector, and there has been no indication of any easing of those restrictions.

Doubt Over Sanctions’ Impact

While Trump’s threat of expanded sanctions aims to pressure Russia into peace negotiations, there is growing skepticism about their effectiveness. Analysts warn that Russia has already defied some of the harshest U.S. sanctions in history and remains largely undeterred. Despite numerous rounds of financial, trade, and energy sanctions imposed by the U.S. and its allies, Russia has managed to stabilize its economy and continue its military operations in Ukraine.

Through a combination of rerouted trade partnerships, particularly with China, India, and other non-Western nations, and strategic measures to maintain its energy revenues, Russia has softened the blow of Western economic penalties. The Russian ruble, which initially plummeted following the invasion, rebounded significantly, and despite reduced oil exports to Europe, Moscow found alternative markets for its energy products.

Zelenskyy Calls for a Truce Amid Escalating Attacks

Following Trump’s post, Zelenskyy took to Telegram, calling for a truce in the air and at sea after Russia launched a massive overnight attack on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure.

“In total, the Russians launched nearly 70 missiles, both cruise and ballistic, as well as almost 200 attack drones,” Zelenskyy said. “All of this was directed at infrastructure that ensures normal life. Repair and restoration work is already underway wherever needed. Unfortunately, there is also damage to residential buildings.”

Zelenskyy reiterated Ukraine’s commitment to peace, stating, “Ukraine is ready to take the path to peace, and Ukraine has wanted peace from the very first second of this war. The goal is to force Russia to stop the war.”

He noted that Ukraine defended its airspace using F-16 and Mirage-2000 jets provided by France. French President Emmanuel Macron, earlier in the week, assured Ukraine that Europe would maintain its support against Russian aggression, regardless of U.S. policy shifts.

Uncertainty in U.S. Foreign Policy

The evolving U.S. stance on the Ukraine conflict has left both allies and adversaries uncertain. While Trump’s recent statements suggest a tougher approach toward Russia, the administration’s previous actions raised doubts about Washington’s commitment to Ukraine.

In Europe, concerns are mounting that the U.S. is stepping back from its role as a key supporter of Ukraine. Macron’s assurances to Zelenskyy underscore a growing realization in Europe that it may have to shoulder more of the burden if Trump continues to distance the U.S. from the conflict.

Analysts warn that any ambiguity in U.S. policy could embolden Russia and destabilize the fragile support system keeping Ukraine resilient. Without a clear and consistent American stance, the conflict could drag on, with Russia feeling less pressure to negotiate a settlement.

While sanctions could theoretically weaken Russia’s economy, the reality is that Moscow has built significant economic resilience. The Kremlin’s “Fortress Russia” strategy, which involves stockpiling reserves and creating alternative trade routes, has blunted the impact of Western sanctions.

The next steps remain unclear, with Trump’s threat potentially signaling a recalibration of his administration’s approach. Whether this leads to concrete action or is part of a broader negotiation tactic will likely determine the trajectory of the conflict and its broader geopolitical implications.