Hacker News Reader

Comment by lm28469 | Hacker News Reader

Preventing Germany from negotiating a new deal in winter when they're out of cheap gas

Making sure Europe will buy more of their fracking LPG

Making it harder to secure a diplomatic end to the war (selling more weapons, strengthening their position in europe, &c.)

Some other long term shenanigans that will be declassified in 50 years

It wouldn't be the firs time the US does something shady, I'm not saying it's them but I would absolutely not be surprised if it was, I would also not be surprised if it was Russia even though it sounds equally dumb

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/eu-us_lng_trade...

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-lng-exports-europ...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-wikileaks-idUSKBN0...

View on HN

I thought that would push Germany and Italy to go nuclear, instead of distancing from it. Maybe short time they have to buy gas somewhere else, but for the long run, I see nuclear power as alternative.

I do not understand how messing with the gas of EU will difficult a diplomatic way out in a conflict between Ukraine and Russland. Nobody inside the NATO wants this to escalate a little bit more. (I hope at least)

Don't forget stealing Europe's industrial base!

https://www.wsj.com/articles/high-natural-gas-prices-push-eu...

Honestly as evil as it is, for once the US foreign meddling seems to make sense from a purely strategic standpoint.

(By contrast, not sure what Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan etc gained us (unless you happened to be a military contractor or weapons manufacturer).)

> By contrast, not sure what Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan etc gained us (unless you happened to be a military contractor or weapons manufacturer

Pretty sure it's a big point, gotta keep the war machine running

Iraq made some sense if you see it as a war to make sure no major energy-capital flows went through the Euro (Iraq started selling their oil in Euros in the late 90s). The US war machine wants to go to war with everyone, from time to time American economic interests lets them.

Ah, interesting, thx!

Iraq: Saddam wanted to move to the Euro for his oil trade.

Libya: Gaddhafi wanted to move to a gold backed African Lira.

Afghanistan was initially due to 9/11 and then became a weapons testing ground.

Syria: "We're keeping the oil."

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/keeping-oil-syria-trump-cons...

None of these points make any sense to me.

For as long as the war goes on, Germany will buy as much US gas as it can get its hands on, to the exclusion of Russian gas, as best it can and regardless of price. US energy companies aren't going to benefit more.

Furthermore, say what you will about Biden, but his gradual approach to sanctions at the beginning of the war shows that he's been trying to end things diplomatically from the start. Go back and read news articles from March about the war hawks in Congress shrieking that Biden wasn't being aggressive enough. See also the withdrawal from Afghanistan; Biden's not a hawk.

Furthermore, right now the US's premier geopolitical goal is to assert its hegemony via weakening Russia. For that, it needs NATO solidarity, which is at an all-time high. A weakened German resolve due to freezing weather would threaten to enrich Russia, but would not otherwise break NATO's resolve; the rest of the sanctions would continue unabated. After all, Germany has still already been buying gas from Russia all this time. But backstabbing an ally would shake NATO's resolve, if it were discovered. It's all downside and no upside for the US. It would be an irrational desperation move, and the US is not currently desperate.

I don't know who did this. Weirdly, I don't think it was Russia either; Putin may be acting erratically, but I think there would be ways to sow discord among NATO with less cost to Russia than this. We need more information.

> None of these points make any sense to me.

Wait and see, the fake weapons of mass destruction or the spying on allies didn't make sense either, yet they both happened

No, those made perverse sense. The US was desperate to be seen doing something, anything for the sake of retribution in the wake of 9/11, it would have fabricated an excuse to invade so-and-so country regardless of Cheney's graft. The financial motivation was a convenient byproduct of the geopolitical motivation. But in this case, the financial motivation would be in direct opposition to the geopolitical motivation.

mmm, it's a bit more crude than just sign a deal with Russia and just go and make happen not one, but two Nordstreams, not precisely backstabbing those two, but you see the point: Everyone out there is at end looking for themselves.

Hence, there's no guarantee whatsoever than if EU begins to crunch under the winter, it wouln't just call it a day and request please open ND 1 + 2, we just need to refill reserves, then little more, and then they're back to full operational status.

So, it could weaken NATO just if it can be fully demonstrated, no doubt at all, that it was them. If you can't, it is just twitter and inet noise, nobody can base politics over rumors.

I said in another comment, this is war - kinetic, hybrid, cyber -, quite a difference with the usual geopolitical game. Some stuff you just can bet, you need to be sure.

At the end, if Germany or EU as whole steps back from its current status (re-opening ND1+2, or other actions), it could equally desastrous from NATO. Now you have no good choices, just bads ones and worst ones.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com