13 ms·

For the rest of the world this is a good thing. Why would the United States be the one to decide if Germany is allowed to build a pipeline to Russia or not? I

For the rest of the world this is a good thing. Why would the United States be the one to decide if Germany is allowed to build a pipeline to Russia or not? Image if it was Germany that used sanctions to prevent the US from building a pipeline to Mexico. Would you be ok with that?

manny182 7y ago
if Germany won ww2 they might have sanctioned the united states, just saying.
klyrs 7y ago
> Image if it was Germany that used sanctions to prevent the US from building a pipeline to Mexico. Would you be ok with that? I'd be okay with any number of countries using sanctions to "punish" the US for any number of things. It's their right as sovereign nations. The irony here is that it's a double edged sword. But what I'd really prefer would be a more direct say over who my country is sanctioning and why.
philwelch 7y ago
Is the US building a pipeline to Mexico? Is Mexico a corrupt, authoritarian dictatorship that routinely interferes in Western politics? If my aunt had balls, would she be my uncle?
- wavefunction 7y ago
  The US and Canada already possess pipelines to Mexico. https://theodora.com/pipelines/mexico_pipelines.html https://theodora.com/pipelines/mexico_pipelines.html
  - philwelch 7y ago
    Does Mexico use those pipelines to project power into North America? If anything it would be the reverse as the US is a net exporter, but in reality it’s not quite comparable.
    - sremani 7y ago
      Rule#1 : Relationship between two countries is almost always Asymmetric.
- smallstepforman 7y ago
  Have you been reading too much propaganda lately? How does it feel to know that you’ve been influenced by paid influencers? Most intelligent people aren’t influenced by the MSM drivel.
wavefunction 7y ago
US opposition to a pipeline to Russia is confined to a small group of people who are strangely very friendly to Russia on all other matters. There is no widespread or popular opposition to Germany building a pipeline to Russia in the United States. This doesn't really treat with the dollar-denominated world economy but I wanted to point this out to differentiate the current irrational foreign policy of the US government from the subject at hand.
- Spooky23 7y ago
  It isn’t in the US or NATO interest for Germany to be dependent on Russian oil. Current US policy, to the extent that we have policy today, is a whole other matter.
  - augstein 7y ago
    It’s about Russian natural gas, not oil. About 25% of Germany’s primary energy are produced from gas, of which about 40% come from Russia (down from about 50% in 1995).[1] The US sanctions against the Nord Stream project are seen by a number of Germans as a rather clumsy attempt to push the sale of their expensive liquified natural gas, which to a high degree is produced by hydraulic fracking.[2] 1) https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?tl=en&u=https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article179177142/Trump-im-Faktencheck-Wie-abhaengig-ist-Deutschland-wirklich-von-russischem-Gas.html https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?tl=en&u=... 2) https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?tl=en&u=https://m.tagesspiegel.de/wirtschaft/tanker-anladestellen-fuer-den-import-von-gas-streit-um-den-bau-von-fluessiggas-terminals-in-deutschland/25361240.html https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?tl=en&u=...
    - mattrp 7y ago
      Talk about clumsy, I seem to remember Russia turning off the gas back in the 90s and everyone was surprised at just how easily nato’s entire infrastructure could be held ransom by the flick of a switch. The issue basically boils down to the survivability of US/NATO operations. And the Germans ambivalence - what with Gerard Schroeder essentially doing a crony deal for nordstream directly underscores that Germans know what we really care about is military survivability. Pretty much every foreign policy decision the US has made since the gas debacle has been to find alternatives to Russian oil. Admitting Georgia to NATO, supporting Ukraine, heck even Iraq and afghanistan have undertones of finding gas alternatives for Germany. The realist in me agrees, it kind of stinks that America seems a bit selfish. But I might remind you that Germany didn’t really like it when the gas did get shut off. I seem to recall their response was, hey America, do something! In the end, Most of what we have done hasn’t worked and then you have Germans themselves supporting nordstream which essentially undermines the entire strategy altogether. I wouldn’t be surprised if the US cedes Germany and leaves in the next decade. Now... what’s going to hurt the dollar more? A few sanctions now or departure from the European continent altogether? Ps also consider the source - the economist - they’ve never met a sanction or a trade barrier they could like so keep that in mind....
jariel 7y ago
"Why would the United States be the one to decide if Germany is allowed to build a pipeline to Russia or not?" Because America provides defence for Germany, and Russia has 1000 nuclear warheads pointed at Germany, the US and others, and they are an antagonising state, actively trying to disrupt the governments in Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine, etc. All these issues are quite fundamentally related, so it matters. That said, I don't think a pipeline will matter that much. The premise of the article is problematic because there are almost no alternatives for the USD outside the Euro, and possibly the Pound for a few things. The RMB can't effectively be a global currency until it becomes transparent, which means the CCP would have to give up control, which they won't do. There is really nothing on the horizon - no digital/fintech/blockchain anything that will change the playing field. If anything - as 5B people on planet earth go from $1/day to $20/day and come into the global economy, the USD will have even greater seigneuriage power.
- gsich 7y ago
  >Because America provides defence for Germany, and Russia has 1000 nuclear warheads pointed at Germany, the US and others, and they are an antagonising state, actively trying to disrupt the governments in Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine, etc. Those have been there for a long time, even before the "disruption". Besides France has nukes too, so not much win there.
- taurath 7y ago
  What is this protection that the US provides other than ensuring the US would be drawn into a war between the EU and Russia? France has enough nukes to provide MAD protection.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    We had 200,000 US soldiers in Germany until reunification, and still have 40,0000. Germany saves money maintaining a significantly smaller military force. The benefit to Germany is such that US presidents use the idea of moving US troops to, say, Poland as a prod to encourage the German government to spend more on defense: https://www.euractiv.com/section/defence-and-security/news/washington-needles-germany-with-threat-of-us-troops-relocation-to-poland/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/defence-and-security/news/w... In response to Trump’s threats to pull out of NATO, Germany’s reaction was not “oh, good, those useless Americans will leave.” It was: https://www.dw.com/en/merkel-vows-to-hit-2-nato-spending-target-by-early-2030s/a-51432189 https://www.dw.com/en/merkel-vows-to-hit-2-nato-spending-tar... > Chancellor Angela Merkel on Wednesday underscored her commitment to NATO, pledging to raise Germany's defense spending to the alliance's 2% target "by the early 2030s." > "The preservation of NATO is in our own interest, more than during the Cold War," Merkel said while addressing lawmakers in German parliament. > "At the moment, Europe is unable to defend itself," she added, urging the bloc to stay together.
headcanon 7y ago
The United States' main geopolitical imperative is to maintain global hegemony. Part of this is ensuring regional powers are either allied (in the case of NATO countries or Saudi Arabia) or contained (in the case of Russia and Iran). It is a fundamental rule of Geopolitics that every country assert itself to the best of its abilities with the strengths they have. One of Russia's biggest strengths is natural resources. It is advantageous to them to have Western Europe dependent on its oil and natural gas supplies. George Friedman explains in this book [1] that Russia may attempt to assert itself to a greater extent in the next few decades, possibly going so far as to annex a Baltic country or two. Today this would be inconceivable, but if Russia has the off switch for Germany's economy, NATO's response is drastically weakened. Whatever scenario may come to pass, European reliance on Russian natural resources disrupts the US's containment strategy which it needs in order to maintain its dominant position in the region. So yes, it will say something if it feels like that is under threat. Not saying this is a good or bad thing. Depends on your perspective and what country you live in. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Next-100-Years-Forecast-Century/dp/0767923057 https://www.amazon.com/Next-100-Years-Forecast-Century/dp/07...
- igravious 7y ago
  > Russia may attempt to assert itself to a greater extent in the next few decades, possibly going so far as to annex a Baltic country or two. This is in the book that forecasts that Japan will attack the US in 2050 except that it'll be all space-borne battlestars and lasers and hypersonic weapons. Among other preposterous scenarios. Riiiight. > It is advantageous to them to have Western Europe dependent on its oil and natural gas supplies. Loaded language. Don't you think Western Europe has thought of this? And hey, if Russia turns off the tap they turn off their revenue stream. Besides, Europe, like the US, keeps strategic fossil fuel reserves. > The United States' main geopolitical imperative is to maintain global hegemony. > Not saying this is a good or bad thing. Depends on your perspective and what country you live in. Seems to me that if the US keeps sanctioning foes and allies alike every country bar the US will consider this a bad thing.
  - hopia 7y ago
    It's really not so far-fetched to think Russia would annex a Baltic state sometime in the future. They've shown they have the capability and political will to annex similarly prepared countries' territories. It all boils down to what they believe NATO's response would be.
elfexec 7y ago
> Why would the United States be the one to decide if Germany is allowed to build a pipeline to Russia or not? Because the US is the sole guarantor of German sovereignty. It's why the US has tens of thousands of troops in germany. It's why US decides if and how much oil/gas Japan or South Korea gets from Russia. It's why the US decides if the Dutch get to sell ASML semiconductor equipment to China. It's why the US dictates whether Canada arrests a chinese executive. Pax Americana. Protection doesn't come cheap. It certainly isn't free. > Image if it was Germany that used sanctions to prevent the US from building a pipeline to Mexico. Would you be ok with that? Of course not, but germany is in no position to dictate anything to the US. That's the point. If germany had tens of thousands of troops stationed in the US and provided safety to the US and mexico was germany's enemy, then germany would prevent the US from doing business with mexico. I'm not saying it's right or moral. It's just basic geopolitics. If you depend on another nation for your safety and host tens of thousands of their troops in your country, you are really not a sovereign nation and hence don't have the luxury of making all the decisions on your own.
- Jedi72 7y ago
  It's more like gangsters providing "protection" to local businesses. When it comes to the US, you have no choice in the matter.
- pinkfoot 7y ago
  > Because the US is the sole guarantor of German sovereignty. Sole? So the German armed forces are for what exactly?
  - pnw_hazor 7y ago
    "Along with the reliability woes of air force jetliners, only about a third of Germany’s 128 Eurofighter jets are combat ready and just a quarter of its 130 army helicopters are operational, mainly because of shortages of spare parts. Only one of six submarines and fewer than half of 244 Leopard tanks are working, according to a recent report to Parliament." https://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-germany-armed-forces-20190213-story.html https://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-germany-armed-forces-201...
OrgNet 7y ago
Is it the beginning of the great/bad crash of 2020? That would be the only way that Trump would loose the 2020 election...
dehrmann 7y ago
At first glance, but it's probably better for Europe to be grudgingly aligned with the top power that it's generally aligned with than to be a more independent 3rd or 4th power. It's the same reason the UK is better off in the EU, even if they don't like it.
tus88 7y ago
Germany aggressively uses EU money to bludgeon mainly Eastern European states info accepting policies made in Brussels. Germany has done a lot worse as well obviously.
bluecalm 7y ago
I live in Poland and I am ok with US bullying others around because it increases stability even if we all have to pay for it. The problem with that pipeline is that Russia will get a way to cut off Ukraine and Poland without cutting Western Europe (their biggest customers). This increases chances of them invading rest of the Ukraine or maybe even Poland in the future. Without big bully to prevent countries doing deals that decrease stability in other countries we have no recourse. Sadly it's too late for that particular project to be stopped. Previous administration missed it or didn't intervene on purpose. It doesn't make any sense to put sanctions on Russia because of their land grab in Ukraine while allowing them to build a pipeline that destabilizes the region even further.
- La1n 7y ago
  >Without big bully to prevent countries doing deals that decrease stability in other countries we have no recourse. The problem here is that many do argue right now that the US is doing this themselves and is a large factor in lots of instability in say the middle East.
- AsyncAwait 7y ago
  As someone from a country neighboring Poland, I am very familiar with this reactionary mindset and find it disgusting. (Poland seems to be in a very reactionary period right now in general.) - Yes, we were part of the USSR, which was responsible for many crimes, but that doesn't mean we now need to be unsophisticated U.S. bootlickers incapable of looking at each individual situation and evaluating it on its own merits. For example, it is easy to see how the U.S. would not tolerate the sort of of military exercises done near the borders of Iran off the coast of Mexico. But somehow when U.S. does it, it's fine. Same with the recent airliner disaster, which took Iran 3 days to admit to, longer than it should have, but the smug coverage from U.S. media completely omits any discussion of the U.S. taking 7 years(!) to admit to a similar disaster. Hard to argue the Iraq War was any good, same for Libya, or the sponsoring of fundamentalists in Syria, in fact the American relationship with gulf monarchies, or even Israel, is hardly based on any moral principles. The record in Latin America is too long to even get into etc. etc.
  - 7y ago
Mirioron 7y ago
>Image if it was Germany that used sanctions to prevent the US from building a pipeline to Mexico. Would you be ok with that? On the other hand, imagine that you're Canada and the US decides to build a pipeline to China/North Korea. Would you want Germany to back you up against the US? Because that's what's happening with Nord Stream 2. The US got into the whole thing quite late. Other European countries, such as Poland, Denmark, Estonia and others, were already against the pipeline, but Germany pushed it through anyway. Germany and Russia cooperated on dividing up Europe before.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

manny182 7y ago

if Germany won ww2 they might have sanctioned the united states, just saying.

klyrs 7y ago

> Image if it was Germany that used sanctions to prevent the US from building a pipeline to Mexico. Would you be ok with that? I'd be okay with any number of countries using sanctions to "punish" the US for any number of things. It's their right as sovereign nations. The irony here is that it's a double edged sword. But what I'd really prefer would be a more direct say over who my country is sanctioning and why.

philwelch 7y ago

Is the US building a pipeline to Mexico? Is Mexico a corrupt, authoritarian dictatorship that routinely interferes in Western politics? If my aunt had balls, would she be my uncle?

wavefunction 7y ago
The US and Canada already possess pipelines to Mexico. https://theodora.com/pipelines/mexico_pipelines.html https://theodora.com/pipelines/mexico_pipelines.html
- philwelch 7y ago
  Does Mexico use those pipelines to project power into North America? If anything it would be the reverse as the US is a net exporter, but in reality it’s not quite comparable.
  - sremani 7y ago
    Rule#1 : Relationship between two countries is almost always Asymmetric.
smallstepforman 7y ago
Have you been reading too much propaganda lately? How does it feel to know that you’ve been influenced by paid influencers? Most intelligent people aren’t influenced by the MSM drivel.

wavefunction 7y ago

US opposition to a pipeline to Russia is confined to a small group of people who are strangely very friendly to Russia on all other matters. There is no widespread or popular opposition to Germany building a pipeline to Russia in the United States. This doesn't really treat with the dollar-denominated world economy but I wanted to point this out to differentiate the current irrational foreign policy of the US government from the subject at hand.

Spooky23 7y ago
It isn’t in the US or NATO interest for Germany to be dependent on Russian oil. Current US policy, to the extent that we have policy today, is a whole other matter.
- augstein 7y ago
  It’s about Russian natural gas, not oil. About 25% of Germany’s primary energy are produced from gas, of which about 40% come from Russia (down from about 50% in 1995).[1] The US sanctions against the Nord Stream project are seen by a number of Germans as a rather clumsy attempt to push the sale of their expensive liquified natural gas, which to a high degree is produced by hydraulic fracking.[2] 1) https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?tl=en&u=https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article179177142/Trump-im-Faktencheck-Wie-abhaengig-ist-Deutschland-wirklich-von-russischem-Gas.html https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?tl=en&u=... 2) https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?tl=en&u=https://m.tagesspiegel.de/wirtschaft/tanker-anladestellen-fuer-den-import-von-gas-streit-um-den-bau-von-fluessiggas-terminals-in-deutschland/25361240.html https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?tl=en&u=...
  - mattrp 7y ago
    Talk about clumsy, I seem to remember Russia turning off the gas back in the 90s and everyone was surprised at just how easily nato’s entire infrastructure could be held ransom by the flick of a switch. The issue basically boils down to the survivability of US/NATO operations. And the Germans ambivalence - what with Gerard Schroeder essentially doing a crony deal for nordstream directly underscores that Germans know what we really care about is military survivability. Pretty much every foreign policy decision the US has made since the gas debacle has been to find alternatives to Russian oil. Admitting Georgia to NATO, supporting Ukraine, heck even Iraq and afghanistan have undertones of finding gas alternatives for Germany. The realist in me agrees, it kind of stinks that America seems a bit selfish. But I might remind you that Germany didn’t really like it when the gas did get shut off. I seem to recall their response was, hey America, do something! In the end, Most of what we have done hasn’t worked and then you have Germans themselves supporting nordstream which essentially undermines the entire strategy altogether. I wouldn’t be surprised if the US cedes Germany and leaves in the next decade. Now... what’s going to hurt the dollar more? A few sanctions now or departure from the European continent altogether? Ps also consider the source - the economist - they’ve never met a sanction or a trade barrier they could like so keep that in mind....

jariel 7y ago

"Why would the United States be the one to decide if Germany is allowed to build a pipeline to Russia or not?" Because America provides defence for Germany, and Russia has 1000 nuclear warheads pointed at Germany, the US and others, and they are an antagonising state, actively trying to disrupt the governments in Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine, etc. All these issues are quite fundamentally related, so it matters. That said, I don't think a pipeline will matter that much. The premise of the article is problematic because there are almost no alternatives for the USD outside the Euro, and possibly the Pound for a few things. The RMB can't effectively be a global currency until it becomes transparent, which means the CCP would have to give up control, which they won't do. There is really nothing on the horizon - no digital/fintech/blockchain anything that will change the playing field. If anything - as 5B people on planet earth go from $1/day to $20/day and come into the global economy, the USD will have even greater seigneuriage power.

gsich 7y ago
>Because America provides defence for Germany, and Russia has 1000 nuclear warheads pointed at Germany, the US and others, and they are an antagonising state, actively trying to disrupt the governments in Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine, etc. Those have been there for a long time, even before the "disruption". Besides France has nukes too, so not much win there.
taurath 7y ago
What is this protection that the US provides other than ensuring the US would be drawn into a war between the EU and Russia? France has enough nukes to provide MAD protection.
- rayiner 7y ago
  We had 200,000 US soldiers in Germany until reunification, and still have 40,0000. Germany saves money maintaining a significantly smaller military force. The benefit to Germany is such that US presidents use the idea of moving US troops to, say, Poland as a prod to encourage the German government to spend more on defense: https://www.euractiv.com/section/defence-and-security/news/washington-needles-germany-with-threat-of-us-troops-relocation-to-poland/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/defence-and-security/news/w... In response to Trump’s threats to pull out of NATO, Germany’s reaction was not “oh, good, those useless Americans will leave.” It was: https://www.dw.com/en/merkel-vows-to-hit-2-nato-spending-target-by-early-2030s/a-51432189 https://www.dw.com/en/merkel-vows-to-hit-2-nato-spending-tar... > Chancellor Angela Merkel on Wednesday underscored her commitment to NATO, pledging to raise Germany's defense spending to the alliance's 2% target "by the early 2030s." > "The preservation of NATO is in our own interest, more than during the Cold War," Merkel said while addressing lawmakers in German parliament. > "At the moment, Europe is unable to defend itself," she added, urging the bloc to stay together.

headcanon 7y ago

The United States' main geopolitical imperative is to maintain global hegemony. Part of this is ensuring regional powers are either allied (in the case of NATO countries or Saudi Arabia) or contained (in the case of Russia and Iran). It is a fundamental rule of Geopolitics that every country assert itself to the best of its abilities with the strengths they have. One of Russia's biggest strengths is natural resources. It is advantageous to them to have Western Europe dependent on its oil and natural gas supplies. George Friedman explains in this book [1] that Russia may attempt to assert itself to a greater extent in the next few decades, possibly going so far as to annex a Baltic country or two. Today this would be inconceivable, but if Russia has the off switch for Germany's economy, NATO's response is drastically weakened. Whatever scenario may come to pass, European reliance on Russian natural resources disrupts the US's containment strategy which it needs in order to maintain its dominant position in the region. So yes, it will say something if it feels like that is under threat. Not saying this is a good or bad thing. Depends on your perspective and what country you live in. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Next-100-Years-Forecast-Century/dp/0767923057 https://www.amazon.com/Next-100-Years-Forecast-Century/dp/07...

igravious 7y ago
> Russia may attempt to assert itself to a greater extent in the next few decades, possibly going so far as to annex a Baltic country or two. This is in the book that forecasts that Japan will attack the US in 2050 except that it'll be all space-borne battlestars and lasers and hypersonic weapons. Among other preposterous scenarios. Riiiight. > It is advantageous to them to have Western Europe dependent on its oil and natural gas supplies. Loaded language. Don't you think Western Europe has thought of this? And hey, if Russia turns off the tap they turn off their revenue stream. Besides, Europe, like the US, keeps strategic fossil fuel reserves. > The United States' main geopolitical imperative is to maintain global hegemony. > Not saying this is a good or bad thing. Depends on your perspective and what country you live in. Seems to me that if the US keeps sanctioning foes and allies alike every country bar the US will consider this a bad thing.
- hopia 7y ago
  It's really not so far-fetched to think Russia would annex a Baltic state sometime in the future. They've shown they have the capability and political will to annex similarly prepared countries' territories. It all boils down to what they believe NATO's response would be.

elfexec 7y ago

> Why would the United States be the one to decide if Germany is allowed to build a pipeline to Russia or not? Because the US is the sole guarantor of German sovereignty. It's why the US has tens of thousands of troops in germany. It's why US decides if and how much oil/gas Japan or South Korea gets from Russia. It's why the US decides if the Dutch get to sell ASML semiconductor equipment to China. It's why the US dictates whether Canada arrests a chinese executive. Pax Americana. Protection doesn't come cheap. It certainly isn't free. > Image if it was Germany that used sanctions to prevent the US from building a pipeline to Mexico. Would you be ok with that? Of course not, but germany is in no position to dictate anything to the US. That's the point. If germany had tens of thousands of troops stationed in the US and provided safety to the US and mexico was germany's enemy, then germany would prevent the US from doing business with mexico. I'm not saying it's right or moral. It's just basic geopolitics. If you depend on another nation for your safety and host tens of thousands of their troops in your country, you are really not a sovereign nation and hence don't have the luxury of making all the decisions on your own.

Jedi72 7y ago
It's more like gangsters providing "protection" to local businesses. When it comes to the US, you have no choice in the matter.
pinkfoot 7y ago
> Because the US is the sole guarantor of German sovereignty. Sole? So the German armed forces are for what exactly?
- pnw_hazor 7y ago
  "Along with the reliability woes of air force jetliners, only about a third of Germany’s 128 Eurofighter jets are combat ready and just a quarter of its 130 army helicopters are operational, mainly because of shortages of spare parts. Only one of six submarines and fewer than half of 244 Leopard tanks are working, according to a recent report to Parliament." https://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-germany-armed-forces-20190213-story.html https://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-germany-armed-forces-201...

OrgNet 7y ago

Is it the beginning of the great/bad crash of 2020? That would be the only way that Trump would loose the 2020 election...

dehrmann 7y ago

At first glance, but it's probably better for Europe to be grudgingly aligned with the top power that it's generally aligned with than to be a more independent 3rd or 4th power. It's the same reason the UK is better off in the EU, even if they don't like it.

tus88 7y ago

Germany aggressively uses EU money to bludgeon mainly Eastern European states info accepting policies made in Brussels. Germany has done a lot worse as well obviously.

bluecalm 7y ago

I live in Poland and I am ok with US bullying others around because it increases stability even if we all have to pay for it. The problem with that pipeline is that Russia will get a way to cut off Ukraine and Poland without cutting Western Europe (their biggest customers). This increases chances of them invading rest of the Ukraine or maybe even Poland in the future. Without big bully to prevent countries doing deals that decrease stability in other countries we have no recourse. Sadly it's too late for that particular project to be stopped. Previous administration missed it or didn't intervene on purpose. It doesn't make any sense to put sanctions on Russia because of their land grab in Ukraine while allowing them to build a pipeline that destabilizes the region even further.

La1n 7y ago
>Without big bully to prevent countries doing deals that decrease stability in other countries we have no recourse. The problem here is that many do argue right now that the US is doing this themselves and is a large factor in lots of instability in say the middle East.
AsyncAwait 7y ago
As someone from a country neighboring Poland, I am very familiar with this reactionary mindset and find it disgusting. (Poland seems to be in a very reactionary period right now in general.) - Yes, we were part of the USSR, which was responsible for many crimes, but that doesn't mean we now need to be unsophisticated U.S. bootlickers incapable of looking at each individual situation and evaluating it on its own merits. For example, it is easy to see how the U.S. would not tolerate the sort of of military exercises done near the borders of Iran off the coast of Mexico. But somehow when U.S. does it, it's fine. Same with the recent airliner disaster, which took Iran 3 days to admit to, longer than it should have, but the smug coverage from U.S. media completely omits any discussion of the U.S. taking 7 years(!) to admit to a similar disaster. Hard to argue the Iraq War was any good, same for Libya, or the sponsoring of fundamentalists in Syria, in fact the American relationship with gulf monarchies, or even Israel, is hardly based on any moral principles. The record in Latin America is too long to even get into etc. etc.
- 7y ago

Mirioron 7y ago

>Image if it was Germany that used sanctions to prevent the US from building a pipeline to Mexico. Would you be ok with that? On the other hand, imagine that you're Canada and the US decides to build a pipeline to China/North Korea. Would you want Germany to back you up against the US? Because that's what's happening with Nord Stream 2. The US got into the whole thing quite late. Other European countries, such as Poland, Denmark, Estonia and others, were already against the pipeline, but Germany pushed it through anyway. Germany and Russia cooperated on dividing up Europe before.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]