Europe accuses US of profiting from war
politico.eu
politico.eu
[0] https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-military-superpower-p...
And Poland’s complaining too about the prices of Norwegian gas. Turns out the government forgot to negotiate long-term contracts and they have to pay market prices.
W.r.t. Norwegian gas, yes, I recall several months ago, the Polish prime minister did indeed criticize Norway, but I thought we were talking about new EU criticism of the US? In another comment, I did explicitly refrain from commenting on price gouging surrounding gas as I don't know to what degree that is occurring (my original post was specifically related to defense, which perhaps was not clear except by implication given the link).
Germany/Poland were all pro-american, so it's wrong to say "and pursued energy policy that made them extremely reliant on known bad actor Russia, all while poopoo-ing the US", do you know how Poland hates Russia?
"neglected their military funding" is also wrong, that was an american wish, the "Demilitarization of Europe" [1]
Europe is in this mess because of the US, and their multiple global trade sanctions which have prevented the EU from multiplying their source of supply and policies that forced the demilitarization of Europe, we also see the continuation of it nowadays with them sending all of their ammunitions to Ukraine
And it's not just with natural gas but also uranium and lithium, US/AUS companies busy in Spain mining their resources for example [2]
The multiple suspicious NGOs against nuclear energy in Europe are also something interesting ;)
[1] - http://www.klauslarres.org/articles-1991-2015.html
[2] - https://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/articles/entry...
>While Gates never outlined what he actually meant by “demilitarization”, the U.S. Department of Defense and most analysts use the phrase when referring to the European countries’ tendency to reduce the size of their armies, navies and air force personnel and delay updating their military hardware. However, European “demilitarization” also includes the cultural reorientation of most EU nations away from militarization and an overly international activism. Thus European “demilitarization” is also a matter of attitude rather than merely a question of expenditure on military forces and hardware.
There's some academic smoke-blowing for you. But let's make it simple: 2% of GDP to be spent on defense. They've agreed to do it, but until Ukraine they just refused. Was there some help from the US that they were missing?
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/07/20/how-european-c...
Oh look, here's Germany coming in at 1%:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1293562/expenditure-on-m...
What do you mean? please go straight to the point
> But let's make it simple: 2% of GDP to be spent on defense. They've agreed to do it, but until Ukraine they just refused. Was there some help from the US that they were missing?
The US wants Europe to fund NATO, not to become a sovereign military super power, and even less an independent economy that commerce with Russia/China
That's what i mean by demilitarization of Europe, you are not militarized if you do not defend your sovereignty, you are a vassal who protects the interest of an Empire that is not yours
https://i.imgur.com/FBysSrf.png you see right, that's the US
They agreed to help fund NATO, which is defending them against Russia. Then they reneged. What is this analysis missing?
Obviously the US wants a Europe not dominated by Russia. So should you.
The US should have been happy for Europe
Who said buying Russian oil was bad?
Why the US can dictate what the EU should/shouldn't do?
I thought they were sovereign
I can't follow your statements here
> Obviously the US wants a Europe not dominated by Russia. So should you.
Wrong, the US wants a weak Europe that it can dominate, just like they want a weak Russia, a weak China and a weak Middle East
As for me, i wan't nothing but apocalypse, so you are far off in your expectation
Maybe you would have been (or actually were) happier in the old East Germany.
Whether i live on mars or not doesn't change the facts on the planet earth
Russia has neither the military or the political clout of the USSR. NATO would have probably already been dismantled, if that wouldn't sink the US military-industrial complex.
If not for its post-Soviet utility in the Balkans and elsewhere; its been more active in the post-Soviet period than during the Cold War.
Btw, it's not simple like the way you talk "bad actor Russia". They all come with bad and good things, depends on the perspective. And they all have their own benefits and intends.
Politics is very complicated, isn't it?
Technically from the EU27 only Germany, Austria, Italy, Czechia, Slovakia, and Bulgaria are the ones actually dependent on Russian Gas (6 out of 27 nations). It's important to not generalize.
Also most of the EU's protectionism is around making sure we have a Farming sector for food security and Food standards for Food Safety. I don't have any issue with being 'protected' from clorinated chicken.
On military spending all EU countries spend at least half of the target 2% of GDP from Nato, only Luxembourg is below that.
In comparison the US spends about 7% of GDP but let's not be naive that this is very much catalyzed by Military Industrial complex lobbying rather than some deep desire of preserving world order.
How does this sound: "Of our 12 year-olds tested, at least half are reading at grade level!"
One percent of GDP is a lot.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1293562/expenditure-on-m...
I think this wins the Copium Award for the month.
And Switzerland. Switzerland is not a member of the EU but is Europe, and its economy (and culture) is strongly interconnected with the EU.
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/BUSINESS/10/03/russia.yukos/
It seems to me that the U.S. wanted to be "extremely reliant on known bad actor Russia". Is Nord Stream perhaps sour grapes for the U.S.?
Certainly it would be worse if that deal (and other deals following) had gone through.
It would not have been a 100% dependency, but neither is Nord Stream for Germany.
> So to be clear, Europe has pursued its own protectionist economic policies for decades, neglected their military funding, and pursued energy policy that made them extremely reliant on known bad actor Russia, all while poopoo-ing the US, and now that the chickens are coming home to roost they are blaming the US for it?
In other words, Europe and Russia both had gains for a long time. Now the dreams have crashed.
But you see, this is part of my disappointment with European decision makers. Yeah, great, Europe "profited" in a financial and standards of living sense. But what these people seem to miss (but the Americans and Russians know very well) is that there's a harder tier of power above finance, which is military power. Sure, it's great having good GDP, but if your neighbor has more tanks and resents you because 50% of their population wants to be you[1] then your savings and finance don't matter much. Unless big brother America comes to the rescue, as they're doing, at which point parent's comment has a lot of truth in it...
[1] 50% is made up, but it's a lot.
Russia's neighbors like the Baltics + Poland + Finland have been warning Germany and France about all of this for decades, and their domestic energy and military policies have taken all of this into account. The EU center of power is shifting towards these countries as a result.
So, maybe be a little bit embarrassed if you're German or French but only a little :)
Europe has historically been relying on North Africa for gas since a long time.
Now, let's assume the article is true: Europe is suffering because of the Russia-Ukraine war, and top officials resent US profiteering. The solution is obvious: arm Ukraine. The stronger Ukraine is, the quicker this war ends. The whole narrative around USA creating this war, and USA prolonging this war makes no sense. Russia created this war, and the EU can end the war this winter: just provide as many weapons as USA does.
Note: I'm European and living in Europe.
Also european living in Europe
Russia doesn't give gas to Europe as retaliation for arming Ukraine, stop arming Ukraine and they will give gas to Europe.
I also said that this is not what I would do, because I think you should stand up to bullies.
Now, please enlighten me with all your wisdom, why what I said is stupid? And what does it have to do with climate change? That comparison IS stupid
The best course of action would probably have been trying to bring Russia into NATO in the 1990s or very early 2000s, but that ship has long sailed. In order to stop Russian expansionism we either need Russia to wear itself out to the point of declaring the war in Ukraine over in order to cut their losses, or to directly attack Russia and force it to surrender. Given the existence of nuclear weapons, I'm sure you agree the latter option is off the table.
I'm not a fan of NATO and I don't like the US military. My country has historically been an economic ally to Russia and is not at direct risk of invasion if Russia were to take Ukraine and insist on expanding beyond that. But in this conflict, we need to have Ukraine's back. You can say this is a proxy war between Russia and NATO or the EU, but then it has always been one and a Russian victory would mean a defeat for all of NATO and the EU.
What I cannot stand is that from given premises, one goes to the completely opposite implication. I was just pointing that out.
Let me state it again, I am in favor of trying to support Ukraine in current conflict in any possible way (I hope I said it clearly enough now)
In many ways, it's been bad for Europe because of Europe's own decisions and policies over the past years and decades, and it's been good for the US for the same reasons. Additionally it's always 'better' to be far away than next door to an active war. Of course the US have used the situation to further their interests, as any country would.
I don't see anything baseless or at odds with public opinion. I think any European can see that this is the case. The article does not claim or imply that the US created the war, by the way.
The key is that Europe should stop whining or see the US as a 'friend' here to subsidise them, and start looking after itself by itself.
"Nine months after invading Ukraine, Vladimir Putin is beginning to fracture the West."
This is baseless and at odds with public opinion. It is also the lede of the article.
Now that you’ve learned that top German and French politicians have complained about this very thing you’re moving goalposts.
I think it's baseless to say to the US "you did this, so pay up" but it seems that the main accusation is "you're our ally, so stop trying to profit from this to our detriment". The US has always been more of an abusive spouse than an "ally" by virtue of being powerful enough to bully everyone else around with implied threats alone. You can argue this is just politics but then we Europeans should stop allowing ourselves to be deluded about any pretense of being in the same boat just because we're on the same side in a given conflict or on a given issue. You say Europe should start "looking after itself by itself" and stop seeing the US as a "friend" but this is exactly how the US has been portrayed in Europe for over a century and this hardly went against the US's interests.
FWIW this is another manifestation of the same problem I see within the EU. The EU is largely a trade organization and its politics are primarily shaped by the business interests of its member nations. But because that sounds boring and evil, we've come up with glorifying narratives about a shared European identity and common history and culture and whatnot and always bring up "European values" whenever we feel like it. But while e.g. Germany and France may have a shared history and culture, this doesn't manifest throughout all regions of both countries the same way (e.g. the Rhineland or Alsace naturally link both countries due to their histories but the same isn't true for Brittany or Schleswig-Holstein), and it certainly doesn't transfer to relationships between e.g. Portugal and Bulgaria.
I think Brexit should have been the wake-up call that ultimately we're all isolated countries and any appeal to "friendship" or "allyship" is primarily performative, not material. The EU is fine to the extent that it serves "our" (i.e. whatever country we live in) economic interests but it's not a "shared heritage" or even a precursor to a federal body like the US federal government (which evolved very differently and carries its own undesirable flaws). Given the nature of the EU it would make sense to formalize a similar body to the NATO as an EU member alliance (alongside the many other mostly overlapping organizations the EU consists of) and re-evaluate our place in NATO from then on, but again that would require moving away from the kind of talk where this is portrayed as a "United State of Europe" military and rather a "European Treaty Organization".
Sure, but US did not start WW1 or WW2, but European powers did. In fact, US were mostly neutral for a long time in both wars, only entering last minute. Don't forget that European powers also tried to capitalize on the US civil war way back when. It's just business, nothing personal.
The EU cold have also been better prepared for this by investing more into local defense and energy sector starving Russia of any leverage.
But EU chose instead to rely on idealistic hippie dreams by halting nuclear development, lowering defense spending and suckling on the sweet Russian gas teat, letting its former leaders become highly paid lobbyists for Russian oil and gas companies when their terms were over. The situation the EU finds itself in is entirely of its own making, like that meme with the cyclist who shoves a stick in the front wheel of his bicycle while he rides it and then blames someone else for his fall. The US is not at fault here, in fact, they even warned the EU several times of over reliance on Russia for energy and Germany scoffed it off. And I say this as an European.
EU needs to snap back to reality and get its act together tackling pressing issues (Russia, China, energy, debt, housing, tech, environment, illegal migration) based on what's happening in the real world around them, not based on some hippie ideologies of the far left who live in Cloud Cuckoo Land.
People in eastern Europe have been generally keen to join the EU. It's not meddling if a country wants to join your club, I mean are you suggesting the EU just ignores the request?
The opinion has been there for a long time (e.g., https://www.ft.com/content/cd7270a6-f72b-4b40-8195-1a796f748...).
It seems to me that Europe is doing quite well in providing arms:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foreign_aid_to_Ukraine...
I wish that the U.S. and the U.K. would now take the millions of refugees from Poland and Germany in order to demonstrate their unwavering solidarity. Refugees cost money, as opposed to the MIC getting rich.
What I think is that this "moralizing" reflects a general fear of Western Europe's plummeting position in Europe and the loss of American favor. Their true colors and interests (including those involving Russia) have been exposed, and they don't like the geopolitical shift of power eastward toward the center (one which will, as it had historically for centuries, act to stabilize Europe). The war is merely hastening their decline, so they're grasping at straws and whining.
Th U.S. has been playing off the Eastern European countries against the Western since the fall of the Soviet Union.
This is not exactly new. If Eastern European countries are so unhappy, perhaps France/Germany/Austria/Italy should form a new EU. We are tired of paying while being bashed for it.
Who are these immigrants? Jewish immigrants from EE? That would sooner mean negotiating favorable terms for Israel and US-Israel relations. Aside from Zbigniew Brzezinski, I don't see any of this "outsized" Eastern European influence on Cold War US foreign policy that you seem to be insinuating. Indeed, the insufficiency of influence has historically been a conspicuous concern in Polish foreign policy and diplomatic circles (recall how Radek Sikorski was caught on tape complaining about Poland giving the US proverbial blowjobs like some third rate vassal). At best, during the Cold War, the oppressed people of Central/Eastern Europe had a common foe in the Soviets. It was W. Europe that received a massive influx of US capital and investment for reconstruction and defense because it had an interest in doing so (feel free to call this sort of "favor" an imperialist power move; the fact remains).
> If Eastern European countries are so unhappy, perhaps France/Germany/Austria/Italy should form a new EU. We are tired of paying while being bashed for it.
What a strange evasive maneuver. Crying out in pain as you beat down someone else? Who is getting bashed here? It's one thing to criticize political developments in a fellow member EU country, it is another to misrepresent what's actually happening to justify coercive policies. I can smell the patronizing presuppositions already. "Why, those ungrateful, uppity C/E Europeans!"
If those countries want to form a new EU instead of doing a little bit of reflection or self-criticism, so be it (I wouldn't bet too much on the common unity of that motley crew of countries, though: Austria has signaled a greater, and I would say historical interest in the East with its membership in the TSI, and Italy isn't exactly in love with Germany, either).
I don't think the US as a country is profiting. Yes, the defense companies are...but at the same time...how many people in Congress or in decision making positions are shareholders of defense companies? And what about the defense company's lobbying efforts and campaign contributions?
If NATO starts openly fighting Russia, do you imagine there is even one shred of a chance that Ukraine doesn't get nuked?
In light of more than €52B in aid being supplied to Ukraine by the US this FY, do you still stand by your assessment that increasing armament supply will lead to a swifter and less costly resolution?
Interesting bubble you must live in. Most Europeans I know are livid with the US proxy war and there have been massive demonstrations in the streets in several countries.
Bottom line, being an ally means nothing other than mutual support. If the West European allies are not that important then the US should plow ahead, but the consequence will be those countries will look elsewhere for partners.
This comment brought to you by the year 2008. Europe did look elsewhere for partners, and cozied up with Russia.
I can’t wait to see how Europeans shoot themselves in the foot this time.
Please inform me how Germany is acting in its best interest in terms of its energy policy.
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/05/20/ex-german-chancell...
The three stages of spin:
1. It's not true.
2. It's true, but it's not important.
3. It's true, and it's important, but we weren't responsible.
This was of course also helped by the Greens, Schröder's coalition partner, being religiously anti-nuclear but too cowardly/dishonest to also demonize gas, coal and oil to the same degree.
Of course another factor in this is EU liberal market reforms which promoted austerity and cutting public investments, effectively laying the groundwork for the eventual shutdown of solar subsidies at a time when Germany was seeing massive interest and business development in solar technology (and to be clear: coal, oil and gas continue to be heavily subsidized to this day).
The German government has repeatedly shat the bed when it comes to energy independency, green energy and averting the climate crisis. The only thing we accomplished to date was shutting off all nuclear plants (which is nonsensical if the goal is to reduce the impact of the climate crisis while we still run on coal, gas and oil) and despite all their campaigning this was achieved by a conservative-led government without the involvement of the Greens.
This is not to say that the conservatives aren't corrupt. In fact from what we do know about ties to lobbying groups and direct business deals, the conservatives are even more corrupt, if only by the number of corrupt politicians. But either way this is very much on the German government, not an "ex-chancellor". His post-chancellor business ties were set up when he was still in office if not well in advance and the rest of the government played along (and continued to do so well past his term).
You certainly know German politics better than I do, but I have a hard time believing that if Angela had said "Herr Schröder, do not do this!" he would have gone ahead anyway.
However I didn't take the time to look into his background and how that relationship with Russia started (that led him to being on the board). It's also obvious that it wouldn't have happened suddenly and Putin wouldn't give him a position solely for his business advice.
I have a couple of questions if you don't mind.
--------------------------------------
Wasn't the green party moving to the center in order to gain power? This required them to hold more moderate positions[1]. I'm not saying "gaining power" is a noble goal but it's different from being cowardly. They also have other goals they want to promote, like LGBT. Correct me if I'm wrong about who they represent in Germany.
As for nuclear power:
So the deathblow for nuclear power that you are talking about is the SPD/green agreement 20 something years ago to shut them off in like 30 years but actually 2022 because of technical reasons. This was extended slightly by the CDU/CSU a few years later [3]. Wasn't that agreement and the position of the Green party in line with popular anti-nuclear opinion at the time? Seems like anti-nuclear has a long history in Germany that picked up steam after Chernobyl. In fact 10 years after that agreement Fukushima[5] which boosted the Green party support.
"Polling done by the newspaper Der Spiegel [in 2022] shows similar trends. According to their survey, 41% of Germans are currently in favor of building new nuclear plants. In a similar poll done 33 years ago [1989] only 3% of Germans thought the country should build new plants." [3].
If sentiment changed with the public post agreement isn't it difficult to reverse course on new reactors or an energy strategy? Again noting that Fukushima is only 11 years old and kind of bumped anti-nuclear support in Germany.
[1] https://arnejj.org/centrist-progressive-force-the-german-gre... [2]https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/history-behind-ge... [3]https://www.energymonitor.ai/policy/weekly-data-shift-in-ger... [4] https://www.dw.com/en/german-greens-make-same-sex-marriage-g... [5]https://www.dw.com/en/why-the-german-green-party-is-wilting/...
On a federal level, the Greens are an extremely mixed bag. The Greens in some lands (states) are very progressive and in others they are extremely conservative, especially in the South.
The "moving to the center" narrative mostly goes back to the red-green coalition under Schröder which saw the Greens abandoning their pacifist rhetoric after 9/11 and supporting the SPD in implementing EU liberal market reforms like the massive cuts to the social welfare system. But in principle, this was as much the SPD abandoning its principles as the Greens. Both parties were already in power, so this had nothing to do with appealing to a broader electorate (which is also known to be a false idea: it's not that the electorate won't vote for people too far from the "center", they just prefer voting for candidates they trust to follow through on their promises and most attempts at off-center messaging from so-called left-wing parties tend to be empty promises).
This actually resulted in the split of the SPD with most of its actual left wing leaving the party to later join ranks with the East German PDS (the successor to the East German state party) to form Die Linke ("the left"). But they're their own can of worms so I'll leave it at that.
Regarding Fukushima: while the Greens certainly helped start abandoning nuclear power, Fukushima was the final nail in the coffin and had Merkel (a conservative without involvement from the Greens) cash in on the public reaction to the disaster by publicly stating that all remaining nuclear plants would be shut down on and announcing a timeline. Chernobyl heavily factored into the general anti-nuclear sentiment but it originates with the peace movement (which later tied into the Greens) which frequently conflated nuclear power and nuclear weapons.
I actually think the recent decrease in unpopularity (because calling it "popular" seems misleading) of nuclear energy has more to do with German politics being less haunted by the looming threat of nuclear annihilation that was felt during the Cold War and with more people understanding the climate crisis to be a real prospect and emissions to be a more direct problem than nuclear waste storage. I was a kid in the 1990s but I remember hearing more then about the risks of nuclear power and the dangers of nuclear waste than in the past decade since Fukushima.
That said, if you want a barometer for public opinion it's probably better to look at the headlines of the newspapers BILD and Welt as they shape a lot of the public conversation despite being thinly veiled right-wing outrage bait (BILD being more yellow press and low brow with Welt trying to appear more respectable but ofen recycling the same material). They're both owned by Axel Springer, the German equivalent of Rupert Murdoch.
I don't think nuclear is off the table completely but it's really hard to rekindle because even prior to the exhaustingly slow shutdown of nuclear plants the popularity of anti-nuclear messaging prevented any serious investments in the technology even though this made the few aging reactors increasingly more dangerous while keeping nuclear energy as a whole less efficient than it could have been. We'd basically need to start over. While this isn't in itself a bad thing, it just means any attempt to go back to nuclear would take years before seeing any positive result, allowing for plenty of time to get outraged about nuclear waste storage again.
It could also be that they intended to make Russia dependent on them by becoming a customer too essential to lose. These kinds of relationships go both ways.
Either way, this made Uncle Sam mad.
- Germany is at best mediocre for solar
- Hydropower is very difficult in Germany
- Germany shutting down coal power plants
- Germany is shutting down nuclear power plants
- Germany is cutting down forrests to find places for wind power
- Germany is destroying its relation to an important partner in terms of natural resources, especially energy
Any one of them would be a non factor. Even multiple ones could be managed. The combination is what lead to Germany becomming the place in the world with the highest energy prices. How long can this go on? How long can a nation which is entirely reliant on its industrial capacity exist under those conditions?
Whatever. Russian energy is just one part of the energy supply. If it is not Russian gas, what is the alternative? Coal? No. Nuclear? No. Solar? Mediocre at best and very hard to make viable at large scales, especially in Germany. Hydro? Geographically very hard. Wind? Hard to place, lots of space required, invasive to nature.
Even if you believe that Germany should stop all trade relations to Russia, the consequence has to be that you need to choose another option.
Of course a massive reentry into nuclear is needed if you want a long term solution that is neither coal nor gas. But how can a party, which formed itself around anti-nuclear protest, be the one which causes a 180 degree back to nuclear energy?
With allies like that...
Nothing new though: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/02/global-battle-...
> "The Europeans are discernibly frustrated about the lack of prior information and consultation," said David Kleimann of the Bruegel think tank.
Ukraine-Russia conflict isn't being called a "proxy war" for fun
> "The Inflation Reduction Act is very worrying," said Dutch Trade Minister Liesje Schreinemacher. "The potential impact on the European economy is very big."
> "The U.S. is following a domestic agenda, which is regrettably protectionist and discriminates against U.S. allies," said Tonino Picula, the European Parliament's lead person on the transatlantic relationship.
> “The Inflation Reduction Act has changed everything," one EU diplomat said. "Is Washington still our ally or not?”
US policies will force many EU businesses to either delocalize to the US or to shutdown, as if it was all planned, boosting the US economy, what ever it takes, god save the dollar
Always has been.
There were some tin foil hat types that were saying that the goal of the Ukraine/Russia conflict was 2 fold. 1. To get rid of Putin 2. To make the EU rely on the US instead of Russia.
It appears the second part is working. The more the US escalated the conflict the more power it held over the EU. Some might even say that the bombing of Nord Stream helped this endeavor.
Just for prosperity. The Orange Man was laughed at and ridiculed when bring up reliance on Russian supplies. Didn't age very well.
Somehow, none of these conversations and theories about US-Russia proxy war and US "escalating" the conflict NEVER give any agency at all the the people of Ukraine. The US "escalated" by helping them (at their request) fight off a violent and genocidal invader??
The Orange Man was laughed at because he called Putin a "very savvy genius" who was "keeping the peace", pretty straightforward.
No the “US” kept the Ukrainians away from the negotiation tables. It wasn’t until right before the midterms the US changed it tune swiftly and recommended Ukraine go to the negotiation tables.
> According to multiple former senior U.S. officials we spoke with, in April 2022, Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement: Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/russian-federation/world-puti...
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/14/world/europe/us-will-not-...
https://progressives.house.gov/2022/10/members-of-congress-u... https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/11/05/... https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/07/politics/us-ukraine-diplomacy
It is NOT America's job to tell Ukraine what to do and what terms to accept. Get that through your conspiracy-addled head
I agree with your statement that it is not the US’ place to tell Ukraine what to do. It is also not the US’ place to send Billions of Dollars in “Aid” to Ukraine. It’s a Ukrainian issue, and the US should have left it at that, but it didn’t because the US saw an opportunity, just like they did in 2014. Did we forget how the US upended the regime and placed Zelensky as leader? Why does the US meddle so much in Ukraine?
An opportunity to help prevent a genocide by a brutal authoritarian regime, and weaken one of their largest enemies all in one?.
This opportunity America took was clearly beneficial to the world, Ukraine and America.
They'd be stupid not to take it.
> Did we forget how the US upended the regime and placed Zelensky as leader?
Zelensky, was elected in an election in 2019. What are you talking about?.
https://www.heritage.org/europe/report/time-us-strategy-the-...
"The importance that Russia places on the Caspian can also help explain, at least in part, its determination to occupy Crimea and fully control the Sea of Azov. One of the two canals connecting the Caspian to the outside world is the Volga–Don Canal, which links the Caspian Sea with the Sea of Azov. In the past year Russia has been using the Volga–Don Canal more often to move warships between the Caspian Sea and the Sea of Azov,41"
Both the U.S. and Russia want influence in a region, so a proxy war ensues.
>The fact is, if you look at it soberly, the country that is most profiting from this war is the U.S. because they are selling more gas and at higher prices, and because they are selling more weapons,” one senior official told POLITICO.
Normille. Seven months ago[0]...
>The US will be rubbing its hands with glee. They must have thought all their Christmases had come at once, when Russia invaded Ukraine
* Russia ostracised by Europe
* More US arms sales to Europe
* More US gas sales to Europe
* More European acolytes to join their US-led military bloc
The only difficult part must be keeping a straight face while pretending to be outraged by it all.
There is no doubt that the USA (and Qatar) are having a great time selling gas to Europe this year.
> "The Inflation Reduction Act is very worrying," said Dutch Trade Minister Liesje Schreinemacher. "The potential impact on the European economy is very big."
Which parts specifically?
> As they attempt to reduce their reliance on Russian energy, EU countries are turning to gas from the U.S. instead — but the price Europeans pay is almost four times as high as the same fuel costs in America.
Ok...? The US supplies less than 25% of the EU's energy, it's not America's fault that the EU made shitty energy policy decisions. This sentence makes it sound like America's fault.
> Then there’s the likely surge in orders for American-made military kit as European armies run short after sending weapons to Ukraine.
A 'surge'? EU countries have been far short of their commitment to spend 2% of GDP on their military for decades. So now they're complaining about needing to replace whatever aging junk they offloaded to Ukraine instead of freeloading off of Article 5.
One could start with the exclusion of electric vehicles and batteries that aren’t produced in the US from the tax credit. Effective immediately as of mid-August. Really great for VW, don’t you think?
But I imagine there are many other examples.
to me, it is OK that the US acts following its own best interests; but it's much more problematic that EU countries acts against their own interests.
But, long term, that's ok: long term this hardship will make EU economies more independent, we are reducing the use fossil fuels so incredibility fast, making our houses more isolated from heat and cold. So perhaps we might still winning the long game.
https://www.macrotrends.net/2478/natural-gas-prices-historic...
Gas isn't actually expensive now, it's just that between now and 2015 it was unusually cheap. We shouldn't have gotten this used to this obviously temporary situation.
The other part of the article is what's making headlines here: The protectionist subsidies that the US plans to set up and increase. That is the key.
Example: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-05/eu-warns-... - but also subsidies for various industries, e.g. chip makers, or batteries: https://www.ft.com/content/59a8d135-3477-4d0a-8d12-20c7ef94b...
The Ukraine and energy part does not create any significant amount of headlines here, if any. It's been mentioned but as an aside and without much emotion or blame, usually always followed by the comment section siding with UK and America for actually helping Ukraine.
Gas prices are part of the industry issues but I have yet to see a single article, except the one linked here, that would blame the US for those price increases. Also, our recent headlines have all been "German economy doing much better than expected", "gas reserves full", "LNG tankers line up in front of Europe", replacing a lot of previous more alarmist headlines.
I am unaware of any significant opinions against US profits from this war, it's taken as incidental. Russia started the war and Russia is acting FAR outside of an acceptable range with their extreme brutality. None of that is the US's fault - and arming Ukraine is mostly seen as good and justified, with no regard to any profits US might make accept from some few comments, usually heavily downvoted in the majority of our German mass media websites.
My perspective comes from following at the very least Die zeit and Der Spiegel, and occasionally Die Welt and FAZ, all of this year, at least noticing most headlines if they are Ukraine related. I think that's most of the big German sites, only "Bild" missing as a major player.
"From American sources, they deduce that the Russian-Ukrainian war is a long-prepared American proxy war."
Not saying that everything what the US is doing is great for everyone but it’s important to acknowledge that there are economic problems latent and otherwise, that the US must address locally in order to even engage in external affairs. We are using monetary, legislative, and executive tools to do this because those are the levers we can pull. It is not going to be “optimal” but is probably the best we got right now.
I don’t think [western] Europe is taking the care it needs for itself, but this difference in opinion can be attributed to differences in culture, e.g. Americans tends to be more individually-minded and European societies tend to focus on the collective.
Americans do, by and large, support efforts to support Ukraine and the Europe, even some of the most conservative people I know, ones who vehemently disagree with European governance/values, still very strongly support the cause of assisting our friends across the pond. It sucks that we’re having to deal with artificially induced inflation and grifters profiting off of this, but refinement of policy to prevent that takes years that Ukraine and the EU do not have to wait.
In my mind, people’s lives, freedoms, and their country they love are at stake and Americans who otherwise would not have given Ukraine a second thought before have found a deep respect and kinship for their resolve, determination, military ability, and bravery being faced with what was (at least at one time) one of the most powerful military forces in the world. Money can be replaced, refunded, sent as relief, but lives cannot.
Now, once you look at the course of events through the prism of what is benefiting Germany, it is clear that those were set to benefit Germany. It just so happened, that political situation around the globe took a turn ( I am not certain what was the real watershed moment here, but Poland in particular was talking about [Russia and Germany working together in this fasion undermining EU energy policy] way before, say, Trump ; not that Obama was not aware of it either, but he was content considering Russia a 'regional power' ).
Everything I just said is public source.
Europe can still make it work, but it will actually take a real threat for it coalesce and I am surprised that did not happen yet. I am starting to wonder if this is exactly how WW2 started. People not understanding what is going on and betting that it will just dissipate on its own.
Well, that was the plan, really. In late 2021 the industry-business press had more than a few articles bemoaning the US natural gas supply glut, and that was a a theme Russia's energy sector complained about as well, see this from 2020:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gazprom-europe-idUKKBN26X...
Sure Covid had something to do with it, but LNG is not jet fuel. Clearly, there was a battle shaping up over who was going to get to 'light Europe', and that was tied into finances and balance-of-payment concerns - i.e. the USA doesn't care if Gulf Arab states sell gas and oil to Europe, because those are US client states who recycle sales money back into the US banking system. Russia doesn't do that, so it's a competitor, not a collaborator.
Europe could have acted differently - it could have built out renewables to a greater extent starting two decades ago (technologically, that was feasible), or it could have rejected the oil-finance sanctions on Russia over the Ukraine war - so they did make their own bed.
What, were they relying on the beneficial warm-heartedness of Wall Street? Did they expect the fossil fuel executives and finance oligarchs to decline a giant surge in profits so poor Europeans wouldn't have to pay more to heat their homes? Greedy sociopaths are not known for such benevolent behavior, even if they pay millions to PR experts in an attempt to convince the public of their altruistic spirits.
even Trump understood this was a stupid idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu57D9YcIk0
Ideologies like green deal and drastic lockdowns shake prices.