There's literally no way a brand spanking new pipeline for cheaper gas doesn't eventually flow.

It's better for the planet than reviving the United States (and possibly Australian) onshore gas industries too.

It should've been done and ready to go ages ago, American sanctions and threats against Russian Danish and German companies and offices slowed the project down for years until it was successfully completed recently.

Pretty much all observers thought the same as you Burns but the magnitude of these reactions are unprecedented at least on this scale. Uniper, one of the energy companies involved with the Nord Stream 2 consortium just wrote off €990m in loans to it, the Swiss Nord Stream PLC has sacked all of its employees a month ago etc hard to come back from this now. I'd say if there's another regime change in Russia and a new Yeltsin is elected it'll be revived in a minute, if not it'll be literally dead in the water.

I did hear that the Americans threatened Germany with sanctions if they did try to get it running. Was there much about that in the German press?

Very meek responses as you can imagine from almost all parties, mass media etc. Embarrassing but not really surprising, when Snowden leaked the prism stuff and it became known that the US were wiretapping Merkel's mobile her literal response was "eavesdropping among friends is a no-no". Obedience to the US is paramount in Germany, bar Schröder's refusal to join the Iraq war I honestly can't think of any time a government in my lifetime has gone against American interests.

Funnily enough the far right and industry leaders were the only ones really making a fuss about US extraterritorial sanctions openly threatening Germany too. For all the wrong reasons of course but still funny who you find yourself agreeing with these days.

Looks like a fucking Netflix commercial.

If Chelsea goes bankrupt we will no longer be able to claim that Putin is all bad.

Qwiss! wrote:
jones wrote:

Incredible, never would've thought they'd go this far to be fair. Obviously fuck Abramovich and Chelsea but really what is he being punished for? The whole reason he bought Chelsea is because he wasn't on friendly terms with the Kreml, reading the bits you see in the press you'd think he's giving Putin loans to buy bombs.

The funny thing is he actually supports Elad financially but no one gives a shit about that. I'll just enjoy this is a bit of karmic retribution for that.

Yeah as you say no one cares about a bit of apartheid against dirty Arabs. Aimé Cesaire said in 1950 that Hitler's crime in the eyes of the rest of Europe's elite wasn't genocide against man, he had to go because he brought colonialist procedures to the heart of Europe. If Russian tanks were attacking Kabul not Kyiv we'd still be drinking vodka right now.

Thing is, it's not so much about proving European countries are incredibly racist in varying ways, anyone who's unaware of that would benefit from starting to pay attention to it though.

Like the "migrant crisis" it's about how this conflict reshapes European racism(s), what new nationalisms are there, what pan-European movements, what fresh Orientalist Russophobia and so on.

Among the "geopolitics idiots" on Twitter now there's a steady debate about whether Russia or Ukraine is more infested with fascists and Nazis. So much of this debate depends on what kinds of fascism you're willing to walk past, and it's damn sure a dive into any one part of the related history is a trip you might not return from for years.

One thing that's certain, though, is that as more killing needs to be ideologically ratified, there will be more people talking and acting like Nazis in the picture.

Mirth wrote:

That's the nature of diplomacy - 20 years isn't even that long. You keep going. The same Russia has been arguing with Japan over the Kuril Islands for more than half a century but they haven't started carpeting bombing Tokyo.

Kishida just stepped it up a notch calling the Islands an "integral part to Japan", a formulation which his predecessor Abe has avoided for years. Seems like a great idea to turn the heat up on this topic right now.

https://makroskop.eu/09-2022/nachruf-auf-die-friedensunion/

The war in Ukraine is reshuffling the cards in Europe. Germany no longer sets the tone, the European Parliament only plays an extra role. And the economy? It is being harnessed for the war.

The EU once stood for the promise that there should never again be war in Europe. According to the basic idea of the Coal and Steel Community, the European economy should contribute to eternal peace. Later, the single market and the euro were declared to be the guarantors of a stable peace order.

Unfortunately, this was never really true, as the war in Yugoslavia showed. Germany and France of all countries, who wanted to lead the EU, fuelled the conflict with irreconcilable positions. The euro crisis was no masterpiece of the Peace Union either.

But now it seems that the good old EU and its principles are finally over. Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, it has shown a completely different face. Ten years later, the Nobel Peace Prize winner of 2012 is waging all-out economic war against Russia.

Trade, which only yesterday was seen as a harbinger of change and rapprochement, is now being used for punishment and isolation. The open European market that the EU was so proud of is being closed off to harm Kremlin leader Vladimir Putin. What was right yesterday is wrong today.

What is striking is how quickly all this is happening. Just four days after the start of the war, the German government in Berlin proclaimed a "turn of the times" that is all about rearmament. At the same time, the last taboos fell in the EU Commission in Brussels.

The former peace union is now sending European-financed weapons to the war zone, it is blocking the Russian "propaganda channels" RT and Sputnik and - another surprise - it is accepting Ukrainian refugees with open arms. Even Poland and Hungary are providing help.

Never before have they acted so united, so resolutely and so quickly, they say proudly in Brussels. Even more than the refugee crisis in 2015 and the Corona crisis, the war in Ukraine is acting as a catalyst for a new EU that defends freedom and democracy in Europe.

France's head of state Emmanuel Macron sees his goal of a "sovereign Europe" with an autonomous defence within reach. Finance politicians hope for unlimited debt for war, climate politicians want to cut off gas and oil from Russia sooner rather than later.

The Eastern Europeans, who have always warned against Russia and are now setting the tone, also feel vindicated. Poland in particular, which yesterday was still pilloried as a "rule of law offender", is profiting from the new situation - and even managing to bring Germany into line.

But all this has as little to do with strategic autonomy and climate protection as it does with freedom and democracy. The EU is more dependent than ever on the US and NATO. The European Parliament now plays only a supporting role; the important decisions are made elsewhere.

The EU Commission has established itself as the new centre of power. Commission head Ursula von der Leyen coordinates Russia policy with the White House in Washington. There is talk not only about sanctions, but also about energy supplies in Europe.

NATO is also profiting from the war. Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg doesn't want to lift a finger for Ukraine, but has still turned into Europe's new darling somehow. Stoltenberg sends the Rapid Reaction Force to Eastern Europe, while the EU, as a kind of economic NATO, keeps imposing new sanctions.

In contrast, the previous heavyweights have lost importance. Germany has fallen behind because of its hesitant attitude; Chancellor Olaf Scholz cannot come close to matching the authority of his predecessor Angela Merkel.

The Council, representing the 27 member states, is also no longer playing its usual central role. Council President Charles Michel seems to be hiding in the bunker. The first summit Michel chaired after the start of the war did not produce any major results either.

The "turning point" came only two days after the EU summit - after the USA and Ukraine had put massive pressure on Germany, Italy and other brakemen. In the end, Volodymyr Selenskyj's wishes carried more weight than Olaf Scholz's concerns.

Is this due to the dynamics of the war - or have new, parallel structures formed that overarch the EU institutions and procedures? Is the Union becoming an extended arm of the US and NATO - or can it fight for more autonomy and sovereignty?

It is still too early to answer these questions. What is clear is that the cards are being reshuffled - not only in Ukraine and Russia, but throughout Europe. The EU has not been dealt a strong hand; a clear strategy is not discernible in its game.

As in previous crises, the EU politicians seem like driven men, not self-confident and determined players. That is not surprising. Because they have already lost their most important goal - peace. And unfortunately they have not yet found a better goal.

A new European peace order is not even being discussed in Brussels. Nor about the sense and purpose of economic sanctions. Economy and peace - that is in the past. Today, the EU is waging an economic war that is dividing Europe instead of uniting it.

The EU spent 20 years trying to differentiate itself from NATO but inertia and complacency has meant that, at the first sign of trouble, it rolled over and confirmed its existence is merely because the US tolerates it. The UK - like all other English speaking countries - is a satellite state, of course, but the EU's actions show that they know where their bread is buttered too. The only way to resolve that is federalisation, fiscal transfers and a common defence policy. Otherwise when a crisis comes it can't be solved through internal levers because they don't exist.

The biggest winner from this is the US and China. The US we've discussed as length but China's effectively got Russia in the palm of their hands right now:

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/china-eases-control-ruble-fall-faster-yuan-83360995

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/chinas-war-remark-hints-at-shift-in-policy-on-russian-invasion-26qrp8slb

The more I think about, the more I can't understand why Putin decided to go to war. It's increased Russia's reliance on China who will be thrilled to have them beholden to them. NATO have basically proved that they are by far and away the strongest force in Europe. NATO support has risen across the continent with ex-Warsaw pact countries their biggest advocates. Economic sanctions will devastate the Russian economy. And, on top of that, their military isn't as impressive as people claimed.

There's been talk of a multi polar world but I think it's basically confirmed that the world is going to be carved up between the US and China for the foreseeable future. Russia, the EU, India have no agency.

The hairbrained nature of this invasion does suggest to me that this is all a bit personal for Putin, coupled with his own bizarre media performances. I don't think it's all that calculated. He wants Ukraine, always has, and he's willing to risk it all to get it.

Who knows. Perhaps his doctor has told him he’s only got 8 more months to live or some shit like that.

Its an op-ed that suggests Germany strike more partnerships in Africa, particularly Nigeria to import oil and gas. As one way of off-setting the country's reliance on energy imports from Russia. Presuming your tagline reflects love-in between a German and a Nigerian, I drew a parallel.

Ah ok, nice haha. Didn't read the article, but yeah makes sense.

This actually reminds me of the ill advised Nigaz venture between Nigeria and Gazprom.

KingslandBarge wrote:

Its an op-ed that suggests Germany strike more partnerships in Africa, particularly Nigeria to import oil and gas. As one way of off-setting the country's reliance on energy imports from Russia. Presuming your tagline reflects love-in between a German and a Nigerian, I drew a parallel.

😆 I'm not German though, I live here but still more of an African than flobs these days who doesn't even know his 'fellow' Nigerian strikers.

Have to agree with your take on the article by the way, very shallow 'analysis'.