Did you really just post that under an article about how the US is undermining European politics?
Keyword: Undermined. I feel like you're arguing in bad faith here. I don't see the US undermining anything here except a project that would've made Russia richer and further increased Germany's gas dependence, and by extension political dependence, on Russia. I'd say the project itself was undermining the EU solidarity and unity, and that halting this project is ensuring that Russia doesn't continue to gain more influence over European politics.
It doesn't, though. If Russia starts playing games (or just raises prices), Germany can immediately import American LPG, practically within weeks. There is no dependence on either Russia or America, and that's what makes America work against it. They want Germany to become dependent. On them.
The independence of European politics from US influence is really impressive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident
(Dieser Link wurde Ihnen vom Privatinsitut für höhere Hirnhygiene zur Verfügung gestellt. Schönen Tach noch, juten Rutsch, usw. etc. pp.)
(Victoria Nuland saying what she thinks of the EU)
Furthermore... in all of the cold war the Soviets never failed to deliver, why exactly should Russia do so now?
That pipeline will be profitable, but I don't see it as a strategic factor (except for Ukraine who can't exert pressure on Russia by withholding deliveries to Western Europe).
On the other hand, building such a "firewall" will also be useful if the US chooses to exert more pressure like that, for example over the EU defense fund not planning to prop up the US military-industrial complex.
The USA became a much less gentle bully on the world stage in the last couple years (predating Trump, so it's not just about him, although his policy making probably accelerates it as well as the international response)
The Energiewende is laughable in its ambitions though, especially on top of wanting to implement a project like this. Germany has an issue in not being serious about tackling climate change - this is just another example of it.
I'm all for the EU unifying against the US's bullying, but this is something that should've been tackled when the US was undermining the Iran deal over nothing. But suddenly this project has motivated German politicians to push for unity? Really?
The article was copied to reddit (see link somewhere else in this discussion): The ideas that were floated on twitter (of all places! this is far from official) extend on the Iran anti-embargo trade vehicle, which so far wasn't successful.
The issue with the trade vehicle is that it works better the larger its scope, so propping this up over _yet_ another example of US sanctions (this time hitting the EU more directly) also helps the Iran case.
This is about Nordstream 2 I guess. Given how natural gas comes from Russia right now (via Ukraine and Poland), how does this increaase reliance on Russia?
It certainly decreases the reliance on Poland (not much of a concern in Germany) and Ukraine (lots of trouble every few years because Russia and Ukraine can't agree on delivery and transit terms).
Which is sad, but you don't get to call for unity against US while simultaneously unilaterally breaking EU unity against Russia.
I see a difference between these two situations: Setting up embargoes is a hostile act ("do what we want or else") while setting up tools to avoid embargoes is fundamentally defensive (they don't function without an embargo being in force).
So unless Poland is in favor of the US meddling in European politics (but in that case remember: what goes around comes around; I hope the German administration will be more compassionate when - not if - Poland is on the receiving end of American ire) it should still be slightly positive on anti-embargo measures, even if they disagree on the issue in question.
In theory, yes, Poland could take the long term view and support anti-meddling measures. But our current government is at idiotic levels of both anti-EU and pro-US sentiment, which is a problem that's totally separate from the Nordstream issue.
Edit: we’ve now reached a point where bbc articles merit downvotes. Absurd!
Another German here. I find Putin and Russia absolutely revolting, but that last part is utter propaganda. The US has meddled in European politics for decades - just take Trump's stupid whining against BMW or Bush/Obama's complaints about NATO budget or us Germans not joining the fun in Iraq.
I can not find anything current but if you are talking about his statements on the MX plant, he does that to every Manufacturer that sell items in the US but does not manufacturer them here (at least in part).
Trump is a nationalist and loves protectionism, he believes that Products sold in the US should be made in the US. Thus BMW building a plant in Mexico to sell cars to the US goes against what he wants which is a US Factory employing US Workers. He has done the same to other Auto companies including both Ford and GM
>> Bush/Obama's complaints about NATO budget
Umm a large number of Presidents have complained about the other nations not paying their fair share into NATO as part of the agreements all nations signed, Germany does not spend enough of thier GDP on NATO, instead the US has to disproportionately fund world defense...
Then we get to be lectured by the EU about why we do not have Universal Healthcare which in part because we need to spend soo much on world defense because the other nations refuse to
Let's ensure that software and media sold in Europe are made in Europe. (not that Trump minds: both hit California for the most part and he doesn't care about CA)
> Germany does not spend enough of their GDP on NATO, instead the US has to disproportionately fund world defense
And now that the EU is planning a defense fund (which will help on that particular front, and also improve EU's capabilities so that there's less real-or-perceived reliance on the US) the US complains again because they don't get to sell their crap overseas.
The US has asked Germany to increase their own defense spending and provide symbolic support for a stupid war. But were there really any consequences when Germany said no? Those are not good examples of the US undermining European politics.
But the EU has benefited greatly from US hegemony across the globe, such that I can't in any way see how they might have undermined European politics in any way. Trump is irrelevant to the argument, and I don't see any direct or manipulative meddling in German politics in their attempt to get Germany (or Europe) to join the Iraq war. Hell, we didn't go to Iraq, no matter what the US said or did. And I just don't see anything that is in any way comparable to what Russia has been doing in recent years and continues to do now.
Hell, for most of the post-WW2 period, we were an important pillar in their "war" against Soviet Russia and we've been valued allies (yes, seriously) for much of that time, largely based on common cultural values. As such, they had a clear interest in a strong Europe, as opposed to Russia which benefits from the splintering of the EU and NATO. I know it's hard to remember any of that now with their monkey of a president and all the vile shit that they do, but we were close allies for a long time.
Nordstream is contentious within EU
too - it's basically a way for Russia to threaten Poland with the gas cutoff without endangering their business with Germany.
The sanctions are there for a reason and saying that you need protection against them is like saying 'well, they did a bad thing and got a slap on the wrist, the obvious conclusion is to keep doing bad things but fend off the slaps'.
The US needs to start sending ultimatums - you are either part of NATO and therefore don’t enrich Russia by buying their resources and pay your fair share (2%) at the very least or we’re going to pull out of NATO and have a treaty with just Estonia, Greece, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Britain who all meet the treaty conditions of 2% and don’t whine.
If NATO ended and Germany had to build up and army capable of defending itself against Russia it would cost way more than 2% per year.
All Europeans need to understand the financial burden US tax payers meet to keep us safe. I think the Brits realise how important it is and the Poles and the Baltic’s do because they know what it’s like to live under Russian military fear.
The US spends that much by choice, not necessity.
> All Europeans need to understand the financial burden US tax payers meet to keep us safe.
Safe from what? The US military hasn't fought to protect anybody since WWII and there's frankly no realistic threat that Europe needs to be protected from. The EU already spends three times as much on its military as Russia and two (soon to be one) EU members are nuclear states.
* The Eastern European states (and especially Ukraine) want Germany to rely on pipelines going through their countries, so that Germany – as a big player – can be relied on to be working with those states when there is a conflict with Russia. (I find that interest well-founded and a debatable reason to refrain from building the pipeline)
* The United States want Germany to buy more (liquefied) gas from them. Quite a few gas terminals have been built in recent years, and America is keen on selling its oil to Europe, because with all that fracking they aim to be a primary supplier of gas in the world. (I do not consider that a valid reason, and if it were the only one, Nord Stream 2 would be a no-brainer, in my opinion).
It's all been complicated even further by Germany rushing this along without consulting (or at least not diplomatically working with) other EU member states, including France, which likes to put its foot down, since Germany is the big rival (and now that the UK is gone, the only real rival on the European stage).
I would rather deal with the american way of life than being forced to live the german way.