US Congress approves Russia-Europe gas pipeline sanctions

AFP ^ | December 17, 2019

[NorseViking]

“” “” How does the addition of a pipeline, one of the safest methods for transporting fuel, detract from Europe’s energy security? This is nothing but a bully move by the Uniparty to secure their bribes from Ukraine.”” “”

That’s it. The entire ‘energy security’ is a false narrative. The presence of Russian pipeline doesn’t prohibit anyone to build another one or ship gas either way.

[EQAndyBuzz]

I see Hunter Biden is looking for another job.

[Trumpisourlastchance]

This is stupid & it’s going to end up hurting our national interests, guaranteed.

[Trumpisourlastchance]

The pipeline will be completed & be operational next year.

The sanctions will be reciprocated, damaging American businesses & influence.

NeoCons/NeoLibs are destroying American power & influence.

[DesertRhino]

We do spend a lot of money on Europe’s defense. Defense against a non-existent threat. The Russian army is about 10% of the size it was in 1989 when the wall fell. And the best way to not even need NATO is a healthy robust trade relationship between Russia and Europe. That is if peace is really the goal. In truth, there is a lot of money to be made by the connected people by the continuation of the Cold War.

[Zhang Fei]

[Is this as simple as the Left trying to keep painting Russia as an enemy to somehow bolster their hysterical slanderous case against Trump in the public eye?]

---

Russia is one of a number of enemies. But the Democrats don’t consider Russia an enemy. That’s why their stance on defense is to consistently to lower spending. That’s why they like arms control treaties with Russia. It’s why they don’t like missile defense or nuclear force modernization.

The respect in which the Democrats consider Russia an enemy is trivial - it funds ads favoring Republican and Democrats (on different forums). They don’t have a problem with the Dem-friendly ads. They just resent that the Russians don’t exclusively fund Dem-friendly ads, the way they used to mount exclusively pro-Democrat influence campaigns during the Cold War.

[Zhang Fei]

[The Russian army is about 10% of the size it was in 1989 when the wall fell]

---

1/4. NATO members have slashed even more drastically. It was all the UK could do to take the Falklands back from a toothless Third World country like Argentina during the height of the Cold War.

[NorseViking]

“” “” Russia is one of a number of enemies.”” “”

Do you realize the difference between ‘enemy’ and ‘rival’ or you bought into the Wolfowitz school of diplomacy?

Are you suggesting to bomb the pipeline in this case?

As for arms treaty and defence systems do you have any background in it?

The latter question is the most interesting. I’d like to know your take. How do you plan to stay alive in case it is implemented this way.
What is your take on strategic and tactical consequences of deploying anti-missiles and medium range missiles?

[Zhang Fei]

[Do you realize the difference between ‘enemy’ and ‘rival’ or you bought into the Wolfowitz school of diplomacy?

Are you suggesting to bomb the pipeline in this case?]

---

A similar pipeline project arose during the Cold War. Supported by Thatcher, opposed by Reagan. The Soviets were an enemy. But the policy of these United States is simple. Forward *defense*. That means we bomb the enemy when they cross an ally’s border with tanks, artillery, et al. A pipeline agreed upon by our “allies” isn’t an instance of a hostile entry, although we might ding every allied company that participates, with sanctions. They can deal with the Russians or the US, but not both.

[NorseViking]

You still didn’t answer about your stance on strategic balance and your definition of ‘enemy’.

Another and very important point is the politization of commerce. US historically portrayed itself as a defender of free markets and this situation is just extraordinary ugly in this sense especially vis-a-vis Russia which dropped the command economy specifically under US persuasion not that long time ago.

[Mariner]

“while this brings Russian gas into Germany and adds to their future energy vulnerability”

Not a NATO role.

Not a US interest.

[Zhang Fei]

[You still didn’t answer about your stance on strategic balance and your definition of ‘enemy’.

Another and very important point is the politization of commerce. US historically portrayed itself as a defender of free markets and this situation is just extraordinary ugly in this sense especially vis-a-vis Russia which dropped the command economy specifically under US persuasion not that long time ago.]

---

Apart from countries have actually launched an attack on US soil or fought US troops on foreign soil, an enemy is a country with territorial ambitions outside its current borders, that impinge on countries either friendly with or strategic to the US, that has repeatedly acted on those ambitions. Russia is one of those countries. China is another.

Russia adopted somewhat free markets not because Russians like Americans, but because the command economy was falling apart. And yet oddly-enough, Russia’s economy is only about as free as China’s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom

I don’t even trust this index’s ratings as far as the Russia vs China comparison goes. Just how is it possible that China, which is a pauper in natural resource terms vis-a-vis Russia, has 15x Russia’s car sales* despite only having 10x the population, if Russia has a (marginally) freer economy than China?

Re economic sanctions - Lenin’s observation has ancient antecedents, but it was illustrative in a visceral sense - it’s never a good idea to sell your enemy the rope with which to hang you. Given that war is a process that involves setting mountains of money on fire, the best way to restrain your territorially acquisitive enemy is to undermine his economy. Free trade between nations in premised on an international system in which nations trade with each other as equals. When one nation crosses borders and attempts to acquire territory by force, that premise breaks down. Russia can trade with the US or it can keep its territorial gains, but not both.

For instance, who in his right mind would do business with a company that was also a Mafia front, if he had alternatives? Would he attempt to dissuade others from doing business with that Mafia front? Absolutely. The difference is that the US, unlike an ordinary individual, is in a position to make private companies choose between Russia and the US.

* Note that gasoline in China costs 1.5x the price in Russia, presumably because of a heftier gas tax, since there is basically a single global price for oil, and tanker transportation costs are negligible on per gallon basis.

https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/china/gasoline_prices/

[rlmorel]

Good Lord. Didn’t know that. I thought Ukraine was resource rich gas-wise, but apparently not.

I read a few things, and while they used to get most of their gas from Russia, now that they are enemies, they want to get their natural gas from Europe.

Which...is supplied by Russia.

So, I would guess that the issue is that Ukraine was a potential shutoff valve for Russian Natural Gas to Europe if things ever get worse between Ukraine and Russia, and this is a way around that for both Europe and Russia.

If I were a Ukrainian and Russia invaded, I would shut off that pipeline or destroy it. That can’t leave the Europeans with a warm and fuzzy.

Going to research more, but I don’t see how us getting involved helps anyone but Ukraine, and I am not feeling very friendly towards Ukraine lately.

Thanks for that info.

[rlmorel]

I understand all that, and I don’t view the Russians as much as an enemy as an adversary, but I do harbor a grudge for their material support of Iraq during that conflict.

Ukraine, however, is closer to being an enemy of Russia than an adversary, IMO.

[NorseViking]

“” “” Apart from countries have actually launched an attack on US soil or fought US troops on foreign soil, an enemy is a country with territorial ambitions outside its current borders, that impinge on countries either friendly with or strategic to the US, that has repeatedly acted on those ambitions. Russia is one of those countries. China is another.”” “”

Where did you get this definition? It is only legit for an empire viewing any ambitions anywhere as a threat. That vision was behind Punic wars. Carphago didn’t attack Rome. Do you really believe US is alike of Roman Empire? The proper definition of the enemy is a country doing hostile action against your country or at least your allies. Let me know when Russia invades Alaska or at least Mexico.

“” “” Russia adopted somewhat free markets not because Russians like Americans, but because the command economy was falling apart. And yet oddly-enough, Russia’s economy is only about as free as China’s.”” “”

Who composes these freedom indexes? The very same people say Trump is a Putin’s puppet. As for falling economy Russia had 15 times the GDP per capita during the end of socialist regime comparing to than of Yeltsyn regime. In that sense it is questionable for many what was really failing.

“” “” Just how is it possible that China, which is a pauper in natural resource terms vis-a-vis Russia, has 15x Russia’s car sales* despite only having 10x the population, if Russia has a (marginally) freer economy than China?”” “”

I have no idea how natural resources make a country richer. They are of low added value and can be bought cheaply by countries lacking it and the countries selling it don’t get a lot off it.

As for comparison in terms of car sales it is the most moronic measure of economic freedom I have ever seen. Well, ten and then six years ago Russian car sales were the strongest in Europe and twice that of today. Does it mean the ecomony was freer at the time or that Russia was economically freer that UK or Germany?
That being said comparing Russia to China in terms of freedom is silly. And Russia is light years ahead in business freedoms comparing to a Democrat run city. Compare red tape for small business in NYC to that of Novosibirsk.

“” “” Given that war is a process that involves setting mountains of money on fire, the best way to restrain your territorially acquisitive enemy is to undermine his economy. Free trade between nations in premised on an international system in which nations trade with each other as equals. When one nation crosses borders and attempts to acquire territory by force, that premise breaks down. Russia can trade with the US or it can keep its territorial gains, but not both.”” “”

So US is in a state of war with Russia after all? Why did I miss a formal declaration of it?

And it is especially funny in terms of your mafia comments.
It is mafia that is viewing adversaries as enemies and it is mafia undermining potential rival for simply extending influence. Now tell me how many foreign bases Russia has? How many foreign bases has another country presenting Russia as an expansionist threat?

[NorseViking]

Ukraine might have some gas but to develop it takes huge money.
Nobody in a sane mind would invest it in such a corrupt country full of corrupt politicians who would just steal it from you once you start to get profit.