6 ms·

They also proactively chose in the wake of the 2003 invasion of Iraq to avoid importing more natural from the US. Schroeder and co wanted to reconnect Western E

by ch4s3 4y ago

They also proactively chose in the wake of the 2003 invasion of Iraq to avoid importing more natural from the US. Schroeder and co wanted to reconnect Western Europe to Russia and avoid any dependence on the U.S. I think we now all see who the more reliable partner for Western Europe has been. [edit] if you’re going to disagree, I’d be interested to hear your specific objections. The shift away from US natural gas is well documented.

cinntaile 4y ago
LNG is more expensive than Russian gas so it makes or made economic sense to do that.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  Does it make sense now that the pipeline is shut down and Russia is in conflict indirectly with Western Europe?
  - colinmhayes 4y ago
    Hindsight is 20/20. There were plenty of reasons to be skeptical that russia would turn off the tap. There's always counterparty risk when importing things, the US could also decide to cut europe off from LNG if they wanted.
    - ch4s3 4y ago
      The US has been a stable ally since the end of WWII and really prior for countries other than Germany. It’s also quite hard for a president to just unilaterally suspend trade. US sanctions require acts of congress, and it would be hard to get an anti European majority in the senate. So no, there was never any risk of the US suspending trade. Meanwhile Russian has almost always been hostile to or at least in competition with Western Europe. Moreover Russia’s Duma follows Putin’s lead.
      - from 4y ago
        It is easy to say that now. Serious criticism of Putin/modern Russia in the West really only began after the invasion of Georgia and was not even remotely mainstream until the early 2010s. America literally banned the export of crude oil from 1970-2015 so their energy worries were not entirely unfounded. Also, nowadays most sanctions are done unilaterally by the executive branch.
    - brabel 4y ago
      Russia has only turned off the tap after Europe had already turned off every possible economical tap flowing in the direction of Russia, so in a sense, Europe did it all by itself. Sure, it's the right thing to do for Europe as no one want to help Russia sponsor the war on Ukraine... but that doesn't change the fact that Russia wouldn't just turn off the tap without Europe turning highly hostile to it and basically leaving Russia no option (it's costing much more to Russia than to Europe).
      - cinntaile 4y ago
        This is not true, Russia started reducing output last summer. Before their invasion of Ukraine.
        brabel 4y ago
        They spent billions to create the second pipeline to *increase* exports... are you trying to say they didn't have interest in increasing output? Why?!
        cinntaile 4y ago
        At this point it is obvious that their occupation of Ukraine outweighs the $11 billion cost of the new pipeline. That's just the total cost by the way, not who paid what exactly.
        klooney 4y ago
        That pipeline runs through Ukraine to an old & dying oil field- Russia was fighting with Ukraine about transit costs and graft and wanted to turn on Nordstream II next. It wasn't about sticking it to the Germans for no reason.
  - Ambolia 4y ago
    LNG is expensive because you have to outbid the global market to get it. It would have been expensive and damaged the German industry 5 years ago as well. Maybe it would have been better to do it at their pace, but it's not like sacrificing cheap energy and natural resources is an easy step to take.
- adventured 4y ago
  > LNG is more expensive than Russian gas so it makes or made economic sense to do that. It only made sense if one pretends that Russia is not Russia. To get there you'd have to forget to take into account all of the factors, namely that Russia's culture will always bring it back to trying to conquer its smaller/weaker neighbors. Risk is a factor when considering economic security. Whether something makes economic sense must include that factor or it's a garbage calculation. The EU widely ignored this obvious risk regarding Russia. It has been obvious what Putin was for at least 15-20 years. And anybody that missed it after 2014 is an outright fool. I remember reading about his moves to strip the Russians of human rights in the early days of his reign and it was quite clear what he was doing and what direction he was going (standard Russian authoritarian), all of this is the natural culmination. I don't believe the EU was taken by surprise by Putin's choices, they merely wanted their cake and wanted to eat it too (for as long as possible), which is pretty typical behavior. Now they get to pay for that willful mistake.
DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
The difference is that when the US invaded Iraq, Germany complained a bit but didn't do much else, but when Russia invaded the Ukraine, Germany decided to cut Russia off economically. The reason why the US is a "reliable partner" is that German politics is willing to accept American wars. And before we hear any cries of, "Iraq was different," recall that it was an illegal war of aggression that caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, led to large scale torture, and generally caused a monumental societal collapse in Iraq.
- ramesh31 4y ago
  >And before we hear any cries of, "Iraq was different," recall that it was an illegal war of aggression that caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, led to large scale torture, and generally caused a monumental societal collapse in Iraq. I've been trying to come to terms with this since the invasion of Ukraine. Yes, the details on the ground are significantly different. But it doesn't change the legal reality of what occurred. I've come to the same conclusion about Iraq recently. I was an 18 year old US Army infantryman getting ready to deploy to Iraq in 2007. I made the decision back then to not go, because ultimately something just felt completely wrong about it during training. The guilt around that had haunted me ever since. It wasn't until this year that I understood clearly what I did was the right decision, and felt vindicated. The entire last 20 years, our country has been engaged in global terrorism led by the neo-con hawks like Rove, Rumsfeld, and Bolton. It's sickening to truly realize and accept the horrible things we did, but I am forever grateful for having refused to take part.
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    You’d definitely made the right decision for yourself, and possibly in the general case. I’d add that while the bursts of hawkishness in US foreign policy are awful, they pale in comparison to the barbarism of other past powers or modern regional powers. That isn’t meant to excuse anything, but look at the Russian invasion and the intentional atrocities being committed. Compare that to the invasion of Iraq and I think any honest reading will reflect governments and societies with very different values.
DenisM 4y ago
I’d be interested to see that documentation if you have it handy.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  Sadly I’m on my phone and some stuff I want is locked up in Jstor , but look into the France-Germany-Russia troika in the run up to the 2003 invasion. Schroeder was pushing a bigger gas deal with Russia at the time and selling it on the basis of European independence.

by ch4s3 4y ago

cinntaile 4y ago

LNG is more expensive than Russian gas so it makes or made economic sense to do that.

ch4s3 4y ago
Does it make sense now that the pipeline is shut down and Russia is in conflict indirectly with Western Europe?
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  Hindsight is 20/20. There were plenty of reasons to be skeptical that russia would turn off the tap. There's always counterparty risk when importing things, the US could also decide to cut europe off from LNG if they wanted.
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    The US has been a stable ally since the end of WWII and really prior for countries other than Germany. It’s also quite hard for a president to just unilaterally suspend trade. US sanctions require acts of congress, and it would be hard to get an anti European majority in the senate. So no, there was never any risk of the US suspending trade. Meanwhile Russian has almost always been hostile to or at least in competition with Western Europe. Moreover Russia’s Duma follows Putin’s lead.
    - from 4y ago
      It is easy to say that now. Serious criticism of Putin/modern Russia in the West really only began after the invasion of Georgia and was not even remotely mainstream until the early 2010s. America literally banned the export of crude oil from 1970-2015 so their energy worries were not entirely unfounded. Also, nowadays most sanctions are done unilaterally by the executive branch.
  - brabel 4y ago
    Russia has only turned off the tap after Europe had already turned off every possible economical tap flowing in the direction of Russia, so in a sense, Europe did it all by itself. Sure, it's the right thing to do for Europe as no one want to help Russia sponsor the war on Ukraine... but that doesn't change the fact that Russia wouldn't just turn off the tap without Europe turning highly hostile to it and basically leaving Russia no option (it's costing much more to Russia than to Europe).
    - cinntaile 4y ago
      This is not true, Russia started reducing output last summer. Before their invasion of Ukraine.
      - brabel 4y ago
        They spent billions to create the second pipeline to *increase* exports... are you trying to say they didn't have interest in increasing output? Why?!
        cinntaile 4y ago
        At this point it is obvious that their occupation of Ukraine outweighs the $11 billion cost of the new pipeline. That's just the total cost by the way, not who paid what exactly.
      - klooney 4y ago
        That pipeline runs through Ukraine to an old & dying oil field- Russia was fighting with Ukraine about transit costs and graft and wanted to turn on Nordstream II next. It wasn't about sticking it to the Germans for no reason.
- Ambolia 4y ago
  LNG is expensive because you have to outbid the global market to get it. It would have been expensive and damaged the German industry 5 years ago as well. Maybe it would have been better to do it at their pace, but it's not like sacrificing cheap energy and natural resources is an easy step to take.
adventured 4y ago
> LNG is more expensive than Russian gas so it makes or made economic sense to do that. It only made sense if one pretends that Russia is not Russia. To get there you'd have to forget to take into account all of the factors, namely that Russia's culture will always bring it back to trying to conquer its smaller/weaker neighbors. Risk is a factor when considering economic security. Whether something makes economic sense must include that factor or it's a garbage calculation. The EU widely ignored this obvious risk regarding Russia. It has been obvious what Putin was for at least 15-20 years. And anybody that missed it after 2014 is an outright fool. I remember reading about his moves to strip the Russians of human rights in the early days of his reign and it was quite clear what he was doing and what direction he was going (standard Russian authoritarian), all of this is the natural culmination. I don't believe the EU was taken by surprise by Putin's choices, they merely wanted their cake and wanted to eat it too (for as long as possible), which is pretty typical behavior. Now they get to pay for that willful mistake.

DiogenesKynikos 4y ago

The difference is that when the US invaded Iraq, Germany complained a bit but didn't do much else, but when Russia invaded the Ukraine, Germany decided to cut Russia off economically. The reason why the US is a "reliable partner" is that German politics is willing to accept American wars. And before we hear any cries of, "Iraq was different," recall that it was an illegal war of aggression that caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, led to large scale torture, and generally caused a monumental societal collapse in Iraq.

ramesh31 4y ago
>And before we hear any cries of, "Iraq was different," recall that it was an illegal war of aggression that caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, led to large scale torture, and generally caused a monumental societal collapse in Iraq. I've been trying to come to terms with this since the invasion of Ukraine. Yes, the details on the ground are significantly different. But it doesn't change the legal reality of what occurred. I've come to the same conclusion about Iraq recently. I was an 18 year old US Army infantryman getting ready to deploy to Iraq in 2007. I made the decision back then to not go, because ultimately something just felt completely wrong about it during training. The guilt around that had haunted me ever since. It wasn't until this year that I understood clearly what I did was the right decision, and felt vindicated. The entire last 20 years, our country has been engaged in global terrorism led by the neo-con hawks like Rove, Rumsfeld, and Bolton. It's sickening to truly realize and accept the horrible things we did, but I am forever grateful for having refused to take part.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  You’d definitely made the right decision for yourself, and possibly in the general case. I’d add that while the bursts of hawkishness in US foreign policy are awful, they pale in comparison to the barbarism of other past powers or modern regional powers. That isn’t meant to excuse anything, but look at the Russian invasion and the intentional atrocities being committed. Compare that to the invasion of Iraq and I think any honest reading will reflect governments and societies with very different values.

DenisM 4y ago

I’d be interested to see that documentation if you have it handy.

ch4s3 4y ago
Sadly I’m on my phone and some stuff I want is locked up in Jstor , but look into the France-Germany-Russia troika in the run up to the 2003 invasion. Schroeder was pushing a bigger gas deal with Russia at the time and selling it on the basis of European independence.