USA, wtf
-
Wiki: "Both projects [Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2] have been opposed by the United States as well as several Central and Eastern European countries because of concerns that it would increase Russia's influence in the region. The U.S. resistance of Nord Stream 2 is also influenced by the country's increased production of natural gas, which gives the U.S. Congress economic incentive to resist the Russian supply of gas to the EU, in favour of U.S. shale gas."
And (lightly edited):
"In June 2017, Germany and Austria criticized the United States Senate over new sanctions against Russia that target the planned Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, stating that the United States was threatening Europe's energy supplies. In a joint statement Austria and Germany said that "Europe's energy supply is a matter for Europe, and not for the United States of America." They also said: "To threaten companies from Germany, Austria and other European states with penalties on the U.S. market if they participate in natural gas projects such as Nord Stream 2 with Russia . . . introduces a completely new and very negative quality into European-American relations."
These excerpts are from a detailed backgrounder in Wiki that includes an extensive list of references: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream#Political_aspects
wrote on 29 Jul 2020, 08:44 last edited byBoth projects [Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2] have been opposed by the United States as well as several Central and Eastern European countries because of concerns that it would increase Russia's influence in the region.
That' BS.
The Central/Eastern European countries are worried that they can no longer use the threat to cut down the supply lines that run through their countries to "enhance" their diplomacy. The US wants to sell gas.
Options are never a disadvantage.
-
wrote on 29 Jul 2020, 11:02 last edited by
I wasn't presenting the above as my own opinion; I don't know enough to have an opinion.
But why can't they both be true? That is, desire to sell gas as well as worry over Russia's increased influence?
-
wrote on 29 Jul 2020, 11:16 last edited by
Because according to the law of parismony, it is more likely that one of them is merely a pretext to hide the other one.
-
wrote on 29 Jul 2020, 11:38 last edited by Catseye3
They can still both be true. Putting one interest out in front doesn't negate the existence of the other one.
-
They can still both be true. Putting one interest out in front doesn't negate the existence of the other one.
wrote on 29 Jul 2020, 12:39 last edited byThey can still both be true. Putting one interest out in front doesn't negate the existence of the other one.
No, not in this case. The trade deficit between US and Russia is far bigger than between EU and Russia. The US itself is using a lot of Russian energy products. If dependence on Russia really were an issue, the US could easily start with this on their home turf instead of sticking their nose into the trade of their partners and using methods that Al Capone could have come up with.
-
wrote on 29 Jul 2020, 12:42 last edited by
Thanks for the clarification. This gets into unfamiliar territory for me. Very interesting, though.
-
wrote on 29 Jul 2020, 13:20 last edited by Catseye3
Here is an interesting chart of the trade deficit/surplus status of all the countries in the world. The information is also presented in a color-coded world map.
For example, the US is -4.31% of GDP;
Germany is 6.63%;
UK is -7.81%;
China is 2.94%;
Russia is 9.69%;
Afganistan is -33.23%;
-
wrote on 29 Jul 2020, 20:07 last edited by Renauda
I have to agree with Klaus on this. It's all about the US wanting to sell its gas into Europe. That, and a misplaced sense of entitlement to meddle in the internal affairs of other countries.
-
wrote on 29 Jul 2020, 20:28 last edited by
Making America grate, again.
-
wrote on 29 Jul 2020, 23:14 last edited by
Whether we provide assistance or meddle
depends on whether you are buying or selling.
-
Making America grate, again.
wrote on 30 Jul 2020, 00:19 last edited byThat would be about right. Grate. Like a stucco bathtub.
-
wrote on 6 Aug 2020, 13:32 last edited by Klaus 8 Jun 2020, 13:56
New blackmail from US senators.
https://www.cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/Letters/2020.08.05 Final Mukran Port Letter.pdf
Are they not aware that this letter will make it completely impossible for Germany to not finish the pipeline? Now it's not a question of energy safety and economics anymore. It has become a question of whether we are a free country or not. There isn't a single politician who would dare to call the project off after this, regardless of the costs.
Is that really the way how the US wants to conduct foreign policy in the future? By bullying and blackmailing allies?
-
wrote on 6 Aug 2020, 14:00 last edited by
It would be interesting to learn about the whole to-and-fro (in detail) between Russia and the US over Nord Stream II from the beginning. I'll bet it's a pip. My own knowledge is practically non-existent.
Subtext to MAGA. "America: Making Friends Wherever We Go." First China, then Europe. Who's next? Has Borneo done anything annoying lately?
I guess having an asshole in the White House for four years can result in such deterioration in US global influence that bellicose letters like this become warranted.
The near warlike tone suggests the US is running scared. Great strategy. And yes, a virtual guarantee that the pipeline will go forward.
-
It would be interesting to learn about the whole to-and-fro (in detail) between Russia and the US over Nord Stream II from the beginning. I'll bet it's a pip. My own knowledge is practically non-existent.
Subtext to MAGA. "America: Making Friends Wherever We Go." First China, then Europe. Who's next? Has Borneo done anything annoying lately?
I guess having an asshole in the White House for four years can result in such deterioration in US global influence that bellicose letters like this become warranted.
The near warlike tone suggests the US is running scared. Great strategy. And yes, a virtual guarantee that the pipeline will go forward.
wrote on 6 Aug 2020, 14:37 last edited byOne of my major frustrations with President Trump and his policies is that he seems to look at everything that is has to be a "win - lose".
In other words, if I win, you have to lose.
My whole career, I have learned that it is best to try and make things a "win-win". I realize it is not possible to do this in all situations, but it can certainly be that way in many (if not most) cases.
A win-lose mentality only causes long term problems in foreign relations, etc.
I think that the above case is just one example of President Trumps "win-lose" philosophy.
We have discussed before, but I do believe that relations with foreign countries is probably lower worldwide than it has been in a long long time,
-
One of my major frustrations with President Trump and his policies is that he seems to look at everything that is has to be a "win - lose".
In other words, if I win, you have to lose.
My whole career, I have learned that it is best to try and make things a "win-win". I realize it is not possible to do this in all situations, but it can certainly be that way in many (if not most) cases.
A win-lose mentality only causes long term problems in foreign relations, etc.
I think that the above case is just one example of President Trumps "win-lose" philosophy.
We have discussed before, but I do believe that relations with foreign countries is probably lower worldwide than it has been in a long long time,
wrote on 6 Aug 2020, 16:50 last edited by@taiwan_girl said in USA, wtf:
One of my major frustrations with President Trump and his policies is that he seems to look at everything that is has to be a "win - lose".
The previous president had a similar approach.
Except "win" wasn't an option.
MAGA
-
wrote on 6 Aug 2020, 17:53 last edited by
I totally disagree with the notion that Trump is a "win/lose" type. That is purely an opinion, one reached without paying attention to what he actually does.
