US Senate Targets Russia... Hits Germany - Whoops!

[Risottia]

Matteo Renzi, Victor Orban, and Donald Tusk all agree that Nord Stream II is not in Europe's interests. https://euobserver.com/energy/131605

Renzi, the one who's trying to whip up a Grosse Koalition with Berlusconi?
Orban, the one who's blaming the EU for applying sanctions to Hungary is the Magyar gov't doesn't respect the treaties it signed?
Tusk, the one hailing from one of the countries the North Stream II will bypass?

I guess I'll look for some more authoritative commentators about the interests of the EU.

Oh by the way, take a peep at the South Stream.

[Serconas]

Yet more proof that achieving energy autarky - and thus freedom from both American and Russian energy power plays - should be on the EU's top priorities list.

Hindsight is 20/20 in my case, but damn, phasing out nuclear power was a dumb move...

[Risottia]

Yet more proof that achieving energy autarky - and thus freedom from both American and Russian energy power plays - should be on the EU's top priorities list.

Trying to wrestle more funds for ITER from some EU members is rather a mess though.

[Risottia]

Yet more proof that achieving energy autarky - and thus freedom from both American and Russian energy power plays - should be on the EU's top priorities list.

Hindsight is 20/20 in my case, but damn, phasing out nuclear power was a dumb move...

You know that most of the uranium used in EU fission plants comes from outside the EU, right? Iirc, Chad, Algeria, Kazakhstan.

[Shofercia]

Orban isn't standing up to anyone; he's looking out for his own interest. Renzi's stance will weaken Italy in the long run, because damaging relations with Russia & Germany in order to appease the US is not going to be beneficial for Italy in the long run. You have to look at the big picture and at the long term trends.

Orban is looking out for his interests but Italy having the same stance will weaken them? What?

Yes, because of other factors, such as their different responses to South Stream. Orban was pro-South Stream, which the EU canned. So Orban is saying "hey, you guys canned a route that benefits me, why are you allowing a route that benefits Germany over the same good?" Calling out Germany's stance on South Stream is not going to anger Germany. They know they fucked up, and they'll keep that on the DL, maybe even throw Orban a bone.

Renzi, on the other hand, opposed natural gas, period. It wasn't a problem when it was about states like Hungary & Bulgaria, but now, when it's Germany & Russian - that's a bit more problematic. Renzi might not quite get the welcomes in Moscow and Berlin if he keeps this crap up.

So while they're both having a similar stance, Orban is using it to say "throw me a bone you fucking hypocrites" whereas Renzi is saying "fuck, I'm an idiot" and that's the difference.

Donald Tusk is rather anti-Russian, so he's not relevant, and Orban/Renzi would indeed be disadvantaged, but that's because the EU messed with South Stream. I can understand their hurt, EU denied them South Stream, but is granting Germany Nord Stream II. Hence the opposition. But this is more for Germany/Austria, rather than the EU.

You're dismissing him as irrelevant because he doesn't agree with Russia?

No, I'm dismissing Tusk because if Russia says 2+2=4, he'll say that 2+2=5. He's about as credible on Russia, as Buschon is on Global Warming.

It's like different countries have different interests or something.

Why would good relations with Germany not be in Hungary's interests as well?

They would be. But Germany was hypocritical to Hungary, and Orban is calling them out on that.

[Ostroeuropa]

Don't support the sanctions, but:

On Thursday, German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel and Austrian Chancellor Christian Kern said in a joint statement the sanctions, if implemented, could threaten Russian gas supplies to Europe. They called the bill a “new and very negative quality in the European-American relations. “We cannot accept the threat of sanctions against European companies that want to contribute to the expansion of European energy supplies! Europe’s energy supply is a matter for Europe, not for the US! Foreign policy interests must in no way be linked to economic interests! There is still enough time, and opportunity, to prevent this!”

(Emphasis mine.)
?
The fuck?
Oh.
Right, neoliberals and neoconservatives, gotcha. At least Russia calls it realpolitik.

I mean, it sort of falls apart when you consider all the other sanctions we get up to, but...

[Olerand]

Germany and the European companies involved in this weren't just caught in the crossfire, they were also an intended target. This would benefit American gas producers and make Europe dependent on America for gas.

If this bill passes then Europe and its companies should respond accordingly. If they are to be fined for doing business in America (or using the dollar), then they should exit the American market (and stop using the dollar).

Hindsight is 20/20 in my case, but damn, phasing out nuclear power was a dumb move...

You know that most of the uranium used in EU fission plants comes from outside the EU, right? Iirc, Chad, Algeria, Kazakhstan.

Niger, not Chad. Chad has a little bit of oil.

[The East Marches II]

Looks like America's sanctions are getting serious. Unlike Ivan and his daughters of the motherland leaving their Turkish husbands, I believe dollars leaving wallets is a good measure.

[Rio Cana]

Tying Europe further to the Russian economy is a mistake. Ideally, the USA should continue sanctioning any inroads the Russians try to make in the European market, while making up the difference with US gas. That will ensure that the Western powers can achieve some level of energy independence by trading within countries that are politically and culturally allied.

Ideally, US gas will make up a majority of European LNG in the 2020s. Stopping things like Nord Stream and South Stream are really just one step in shoring up NATO's economic defenses against subversion.

That is unless Qatar manages to get a strong foothold in Europe. Poland has built a LNG facility on the Baltic sea and wants to import LNG from Qatar. Which explains why they also rather not have the Russians extend that gas line to Germany which they say could supply Germany and France with there yearly gas requirements. With what is happening in Qatar with its neighbors not too happy with them and embargoing them, LNG from Qatar might not make it to europe. They say this helps Russian gas sales. Also, US and Norwegian gas is more expensive then Russian gas.

[Imperial Esplanade]

I'm trying hard to find any way to sympathize with the Senate, but I fail to see how this is of any concern to the United States, or its' national security, whatsoever.

Russia is not the boogie man, nor are they on par with that of North Korea or Iran in a litany of ways. Besides, European nations have every right to do business with each other as they see fit. We do not dictate their policy.

How fortuitous that this is happening during the Trump administration, however, which has managed to tick off the Germans enough as it is. I personally also find it saddening to see the GOP continue to embrace Trumpism into their agenda.

[Rio Cana]

Did some checking and it seems France and most likely other nations in Europe could be getting gas from Iran . Seems French oil company "Total" signed a deal with Iran on extracting gas from that major area of gas which Iran shares with Qatar. Chances are the gas would get to Europe via Turkey. Arabia will not be happy about that. Arabia has plenty of oil but not really gas which costs them more to exploit. Qatar is the opposite. Swimming in cheap gas but not alot of oil.

Read - http://www.total.com/en/media/news/pres ... -gas-field

This mentions the new French Pres. and Total. Scroll down to find story - https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/ ... a46aa412fd

When it comes to French "Total" it tends to be more expensive when it comes to selling petro. Yes, there are plenty of "Total" petro stations here.They bought out US ESSO.

[Olerand]

Did some checking and it seems France and most likely other nations in Europe could be getting gas from Iran . Seems French oil company "Total" signed a deal with Iran on extracting gas from that major area of gas which Iran shares with Qatar. Chances are the gas would get to Europe via Turkey. Arabia will not be happy about that. Arabia has plenty of oil but not really gas which costs them more to exploit. Qatar is the opposite. Swimming in cheap gas but not alot of oil.

Read - http://www.total.com/en/media/news/pres ... -gas-field

This mentions the new French Pres. and Total. Scroll down to find story - https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/ ... a46aa412fd

When it comes to French "Total" it tends to be more expensive when it comes to selling petro. Yes, there are plenty of "Total" petro stations here.They bought out US ESSO.

That article is... To put it one way, bullshit. It is indeed true that the National Assembly did pass a non-binding resolution calling for the expiration of Russian sanctions, but it passed with a very low turnout and presence in the chamber.
The claim that "Some 577 deputies supported the resolution, with around 50 in favor of renewing them" is literally impossible. There are only 577 members in the entire NA. How can all of them support this resolution, and 50 vote against?
Is this a "blog" style thing hosted by Forbes or what?

Also, France, unlike Germany, gets most of its gas from Norway and Algeria. Plans to get it from other places are being formulated, but none have been finalized, and France is not under pressure.

Though it is true that Macron has signaled a shift into a, if not normalized, then cooler relationship with Moscow. He recently gave an interview to 7 European newspapers where he detailed his plans; and he says he does not require Assad to leave Damascus before finding a resolution for Syria (which is contrary to the previous French government's rhetoric, if not actions), and he wants to cooperate with Russia. Though he also said that he does not support lifting sanctions until the situation in Ukraine is resolved.

[Community Values]

I expect Germans to not support a corrupt oligarchic regime, even if it costs them money. Probably as likely as America to stop supporting a Wahhabi, extremist monarchy, but it seems our morals fly out the window whenever the corrupt country has oil.

[Geilinor]

Germany and the European companies involved in this weren't just caught in the crossfire, they were also an intended target. This would benefit American gas producers and make Europe dependent on America for gas.

Better than being dependent on Russia, in my humble opinion.

[Olerand]

Germany and the European companies involved in this weren't just caught in the crossfire, they were also an intended target. This would benefit American gas producers and make Europe dependent on America for gas.

Better than being dependent on Russia, in my humble opinion.

Not really. While Europe is dependent on Russia, Russia is also dependent on Europe. Who's buying their gas? Us. What the hell is their gas worth if we don't buy it? It's a symbiotic dependency.

Being dependent on America will be parasitic. We will need it, but it won't need us. No thanks. If we're going to be in a toxic dependent relationship, I'd rather we both be dependent.

[Gallia-]

Being dependent on America will be parasitic. We will need it, but it won't need us. No thanks. If we're going to be in a toxic dependent relationship, I'd rather we both be dependent.

There is no such thing as a "both dependent" relationship. Trade is not a case where both parties benefit equally. Rather, one party suffers and the other gains.

Russia having a monopoly on gas (or even a plurality) benefits Russia, essentially perpetually, and undermines Europe's attempts to keep Russia out of the EU's affairs. It would mean accommodating Russia, eventually, because the EU would be too weak to oppose it politically. Want to put sanctions on Russia? They'll just turn off the gas and you will have to find another source anyway. Ultimately it would make Western Europe into nothing more than a Russian client, while alienating it from the United States and Eastern Europe, the former of which is Western Europe's largest ally. The EU recognizes this and most of its leaders are committed Atlanticists, though.

The only way to avoid becoming a client state of either the United States or Russia is to develop Western Europe's own domestic gas sources. Since that seems quite impossible, the choice is between being a client state to either Russia or USA, or trying to balance the two and ensure some sort of diversity in gas imports. Once the situation of imports has been corrected (which it already is, BTW, since the United States has begun sending Europe gas), Europe can focus on other priorities, like building up its gas infrastructure and rebuilding its constituents' militaries.

[Geilinor]

Being dependent on America will be parasitic. We will need it, but it won't need us. No thanks. If we're going to be in a toxic dependent relationship, I'd rather we both be dependent.

There is no such thing as a "both dependent" relationship. Russia having a monopoly on gas benefits Russia, essentially perpetually, and undermines Europe's attempts to keep Russia out of the EU's affairs. It would mean accommodating Russia, eventually, because the EU would be too weak to oppose it politically. Ultimately it would make Western Europe into nothing more than a Russian client, while alienating it from the United States and Eastern Europe.

The only way to avoid becoming a client state of either the United States or Russia is to develop Western Europe's own domestic gas sources. Since that seems quite impossible, the choice is between being a client state to either Russia or USA, or trying to balance the two and ensure some sort of diversity in gas imports.

There is an EU alternative for gas but it will take years to develop the gas fields off of Cyprus. http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/06/a-multibillion-dollar-natural-gas-boom-may-reunify-cyprus.html

[Gallia-]

There is no such thing as a "both dependent" relationship. Russia having a monopoly on gas benefits Russia, essentially perpetually, and undermines Europe's attempts to keep Russia out of the EU's affairs. It would mean accommodating Russia, eventually, because the EU would be too weak to oppose it politically. Ultimately it would make Western Europe into nothing more than a Russian client, while alienating it from the United States and Eastern Europe.

The only way to avoid becoming a client state of either the United States or Russia is to develop Western Europe's own domestic gas sources. Since that seems quite impossible, the choice is between being a client state to either Russia or USA, or trying to balance the two and ensure some sort of diversity in gas imports.

There is an EU alternative for gas but it will take years to develop the gas fields off of Cyprus. http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/06/a-multibillion-dollar-natural-gas-boom-may-reunify-cyprus.html

There are plenty of alternatives. None are practical in the short term because Europe let its energy infrastructure and industries degenerate in favour of service industries.

The only thing it can do at the moment is try to find as many buyers of gas as possible, including the United States.

Olerand's suggestion seems to be leaning dangerously towards continuing a bad policy of captive buyer relationship with Russia, in the mistaken belief that Russia is somehow a captive supplier to Europe. Captive relationships are mutually exclusive, though. Russia has plenty of people who would buy its gas (Blue Stream, Nord Stream, China), and Western Europe sucking up to the Kremlin isn't going to help anyone except Putin. If Europe decides to stop gas imports or something, Russia sells more gas to Turkey and China and can easily starve out Western Europe.

At the very least, diversifying Europe's gas imports with US LNG will make it more resilient and independent, albeit at the cost of tying it to the United States further. This isn't really a big deal though, since the United States and Western Europe have a lot more in common interest than Russia and Western Europe.

[Olerand]

Being dependent on America will be parasitic. We will need it, but it won't need us. No thanks. If we're going to be in a toxic dependent relationship, I'd rather we both be dependent.

There is no such thing as a "both dependent" relationship. Trade is not a case where both parties benefit equally. Rather, one party suffers and the other gains.

Russia having a monopoly on gas (or even a plurality) benefits Russia, essentially perpetually, and undermines Europe's attempts to keep Russia out of the EU's affairs. It would mean accommodating Russia, eventually, because the EU would be too weak to oppose it politically. Want to put sanctions on Russia? They'll just turn off the gas and you will have to find another source anyway. Ultimately it would make Western Europe into nothing more than a Russian client, while alienating it from the United States and Eastern Europe, the former of which is Western Europe's largest ally. The EU recognizes this and most of its leaders are committed Atlanticists, though.

The only way to avoid becoming a client state of either the United States or Russia is to develop Western Europe's own domestic gas sources. Since that seems quite impossible, the choice is between being a client state to either Russia or USA, or trying to balance the two and ensure some sort of diversity in gas imports. Once the situation of imports has been corrected (which it already is, BTW, since the United States has begun sending Europe gas), Europe can focus on other priorities, like building up its gas infrastructure and rebuilding its constituents' militaries.

And yet, we've put sanctions on Russia. And it hasn't cut off our gas.

And Russia's involvement in our affairs is illicit. Russia has no leverage over EU States.

We're not Ukraine, Russia needs us. What the hell is Gazprom worth if we cut off Russian gas?

Obviously we need to diversify our sources, but relying on America is what we call in French une fausse bonne idée (a false good idea). American gas is not the solution, and America involving itself in Nordstream II is unacceptable.

[Olerand]

There is an EU alternative for gas but it will take years to develop the gas fields off of Cyprus. http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/06/a-multibillion-dollar-natural-gas-boom-may-reunify-cyprus.html

There are plenty of alternatives. None are practical in the short term because Europe let its energy infrastructure and industries degenerate in favour of service industries.

The only thing it can do at the moment is try to find as many buyers of gas as possible, including the United States.

Olerand's suggestion seems to be leaning dangerously towards continuing a bad policy of captive buyer relationship with Russia, in the mistaken belief that Russia is somehow a captive supplier to Europe. Captive relationships are mutually exclusive, though. Russia has plenty of people who would buy its gas (Blue Stream, Nord Stream, China), and Western Europe sucking up to the Kremlin isn't going to help anyone except Putin. If Europe decides to stop gas imports or something, Russia sells more gas to Turkey and China and can easily starve out Western Europe.

At the very least, diversifying Europe's gas imports with US LNG will make it more resilient and independent, albeit at the cost of tying it to the United States further. This isn't really a big deal though, since the United States and Western Europe have a lot more in common interest than Russia and Western Europe.

Who said we're sucking up? The current relationship is just fine. We have sanctions on Russia, and it is still selling us gas.

Sure, Russia can find other buyers, eventually, and it is trying to do that.
But we have other sellers too, and we're trying to establish those relationships as well.

Dependency on America is flat-out unacceptable. I would rather continue the status quo.

[New haven america]

Hasn't the EU been planning and trying to lessen it's use of Russian oil for years now?

Also, Congress is being stupid, what else is new?

[Rio Cana]

Seems Israel might be getting into the gas act. Israel has discovered plenty of gas. Already a 2000 km. long pipeline direct to Europe is being planned.

Story on the Israel gas pipeline - http://www.dw.com/en/eu-to-cut-gas-depe ... a-38269274

[Gallia-]

There are plenty of alternatives. None are practical in the short term because Europe let its energy infrastructure and industries degenerate in favour of service industries.

The only thing it can do at the moment is try to find as many buyers of gas as possible, including the United States.

Olerand's suggestion seems to be leaning dangerously towards continuing a bad policy of captive buyer relationship with Russia, in the mistaken belief that Russia is somehow a captive supplier to Europe. Captive relationships are mutually exclusive, though. Russia has plenty of people who would buy its gas (Blue Stream, Nord Stream, China), and Western Europe sucking up to the Kremlin isn't going to help anyone except Putin. If Europe decides to stop gas imports or something, Russia sells more gas to Turkey and China and can easily starve out Western Europe.

At the very least, diversifying Europe's gas imports with US LNG will make it more resilient and independent, albeit at the cost of tying it to the United States further. This isn't really a big deal though, since the United States and Western Europe have a lot more in common interest than Russia and Western Europe.

Who said we're sucking up?

You're advocating it.

The current relationship is just fine.

The "current relationship" dramatically changes every few months. It's not 2012 anymore. Or even 2016. Russia is building into East Asia, which promises to be a more profitable market than Europe in the medium term (2020s-2030s) future. It can very much turn off the gas in the future and simply wait Europe out until it caves to its demands or seeks gas away from Russia.

Reversing the current trend of American gas imports would be disastrous and hilariously regressive.

By arguing for Nord Stream II, when Nord Stream I is undercapacity and European gas imports are stagnant, you're not really arguing for energy security. Nord Stream II isn't about the energy, it's about expanding Russia's domination of Eastern Europe and driving a wedge between the EU member states. An easier solution is to simply use NS I to its full capacity, which of course isn't done because that doesn't generate as much money to stuff into the pockets of Western and Russian petro-oligarchs.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/ ... c0b2499489

We have sanctions on Russia, and it is still selling us gas.

Russia selling you gas has nothing to do with the fact that you're subsidizing its useless pipeline? Or that selling gas nets it more than just money?

https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/possi ... -expansion

And it's building into other markets so it can regain its bargaining position to Europe. In fact, this might actually happen in a couple of years when it starts exporting gas en masse to China. Russia isn't going to rely on NATO forever for its gas exports, that's a huge national security risk for it. It's going to start selling more gas to China while shutting off the valve to Europe. Probably in the next couple of years. What is Europe doing? Continuing to rely on Russia? No, it's building new terminals for LNG shipping from the United States and looking into tapping domestic gas reserves.

Of course, the contracts for Russian gas run well into the 2040s, and the political ramifications of gas contracts means that you're going to have to be thinking in terms of decades into the future. People are already talking about the potential political gains for Russia in the 2050s from its China gas pipeline and slow reduction in exports to Europe.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 7X16300244

Sure, Russia can find other buyers, eventually, and it is trying to do that.

Wrong. It's found other buyers. Turkey since 2005. China starting next year. It'll be exporting to Israel if Blue Stream II is ever built. Western Europe's days of having a captive supplier relationship with Russia are over, if they ever existed in the first place, and thankfully the EU's leaders are intelligent people who realize this.

But we have other sellers too, and we're trying to establish those relationships as well.

What other sellers? You have the United States since last year, with a moderately sized terminal in the Gulf, and with the death of TTIP it will be pretty hard to get gas to Europe without a serious political push. The Baltics don't have any other sellers. Neither does Bulgaria. Or Slovakia. Are you suggesting they should be kept on the Russian lease for sake of Western Europe?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemen ... 079cec1e2e

Thankfully, in his second Actually Good Thing (the first was bombing Assad, but that's arguably only half a good thing or maybe a quarter), Dear President has begun loosening gas/oil export regulations. Soon Europe will receive its very own red, white, and blue molecules.

Dependency on America is flat-out unacceptable. I would rather continue the status quo.

So, you'd rather continue a growing dependency on America?

Why is dependency on Russia better than dependency on America? America has two major captive buyers: Europe and Mexico. Russia has China, Turkey, Western Europe, and possibly Israel. Clearly if you want to exploit someone with a major bargaining position, going with the United States would be better. You'd have a much larger share of overall gas exports, unlike Russia, which is going to be decreasing its share of gas exports to Europe. Because Europe is its enemy.

Hasn't the EU been planning and trying to lessen it's use of Russian oil for years now?

It's considered a huge security risk.

They've more or less succeeded now, and the NS II pipeline is basically going to be redundant in a couple of years when Russia cuts down even further on its gas exports to Europe. It's just busywork for bureaucrats and money laundering for oligarchs, but it gets the Kremlin a foot in the door in Brussels and Berlin. Short-term, it's great for both parties. Long-term, it's another Franco-Russian Alliance.

Ditching NS II and focusing on building up domestic LNG production while switching to USA for gas imports would ensure a better long-term position for Europe with its traditional allies. Ultimately, Western Europe is going to have to pick between USA or Russia to be a client to, and ideally it will pick USA, but that would require long-term commitment, while Nord Stream II is an easy Faustian bargain that is supported by small thinking Western petrocompanies and Russian oligarchs alike.

The ultimate problem is that a lot of European countries don't like the idea that they can't achieve true energy independence and have to rely on an outside party, but such is geography. The way to fix Europe's energy problem isn't to build more pipelines to Russia, it's to build more LNG terminals in both Western and Eastern Europe. Trade with USA, but also with loads of other people, and get Russia out of Europe.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/e ... O_IDA(2016)570462_EN.pdf

But that would require a long-term, unified strategy, which is something the EU is notoriously garbage at. So instead it will be prodded, pulled, and tugged by both sides in an economic proxy war. Because apparently Russia is "European" now and has equal say to Germany and Austria in the EU's energy policies.

Tying Europe further to the Russian economy is a mistake. Ideally, the USA should continue sanctioning any inroads the Russians try to make in the European market, while making up the difference with US gas. That will ensure that the Western powers can achieve some level of energy independence by trading within countries that are politically and culturally allied.

Ideally, US gas will make up a majority of European LNG in the 2020s. Stopping things like Nord Stream and South Stream are really just one step in shoring up NATO's economic defenses against subversion.

That is unless Qatar manages to get a strong foothold in Europe. Poland has built a LNG facility on the Baltic sea and wants to import LNG from Qatar. Which explains why they also rather not have the Russians extend that gas line to Germany which they say could supply Germany and France with there yearly gas requirements. With what is happening in Qatar with its neighbors not too happy with them and embargoing them, LNG from Qatar might not make it to europe. They say this helps Russian gas sales. Also, US and Norwegian gas is more expensive then Russian gas.

At this point it's more likely that the global geopolitics will shift. Western Europe will become aligned with Russia again and Eastern Europe will remain aligned with the United States. So we'll see, in the next war, Germans, Frenchmen, Russians, and Brits on one side; and Americans, Polish, Hungarians, and Estonians on the other.

Eastern Europe is fine with building with LNG terminals.
Western Europe is fine with being Russia's lapdog.

The division on Western and Eastern Europe on whether Russia is friend or foe is being deliberately widened by a mixture of Russian policy and Western Europe's apathy.

[Shofercia]

Who said we're sucking up?

You're advocating it.

Demanding that your country has a right to participate in a free and open exchange of goods is the equivalent of sucking up to Putin? Damn. Putin weaponized common sense!

The current relationship is just fine.

The "current relationship" dramatically changes every few months. It's not 2012 anymore. Or even 2016. Russia is building into East Asia, which promises to be a more profitable market than Europe in the medium term (2020s-2030s) future. It can very much turn off the gas in the future and simply wait Europe out until it caves to its demands or seeks gas away from Russia.

Reversing the current trend of American gas imports would be disastrous and hilariously regressive.

No it doesn't. As far as natural gas is concerned, Russia and Germany, (and I'm guessing France by extension,) have generally used the market rate. And while Asia will be more profitable than Europe in the very long run, the EU will be able to compete with Asia, because the EU is wealthier on a per citizen net basis.

By arguing for Nord Stream II, when Nord Stream I is undercapacity and European gas imports are stagnant, you're not really arguing for energy security. Nord Stream II isn't about the energy, it's about expanding Russia's domination of Eastern Europe and driving a wedge between the EU member states. An easier solution is to simply use NS I to its full capacity, which of course isn't done because that doesn't generate as much money to stuff into the pockets of Western and Russian petro-oligarchs.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/ ... c0b2499489

NS I's full capacity will not be enough after Russia stops pumping natural gas through Ukraine. If Nord Stream I's capacity was going to be enough, why not simply have Russia pay for the project that, if what you're arguing is right, will go bankrupt? Hurts Russia economically, does nothing to the EU. Why not? Oh yeah, because the argument that NS I will be enough is bullshit.

We have sanctions on Russia, and it is still selling us gas.

Russia selling you gas has nothing to do with the fact that you're subsidizing its useless pipeline? Or that selling gas nets it more than just money?

It's being subsidized by private companies, rather than Governments. And privates companies don't go into a deal, unless there's money to be made. Your argument makes zero sense. Either the heads of six major companies are complete idiots, or you're bullshitting. I'm leaning towards the latter.

https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/possible-nord-stream-expansion

And it's building into other markets so it can regain its bargaining position to Europe. In fact, this might actually happen in a couple of years when it starts exporting gas en masse to China. Russia isn't going to rely on NATO forever for its gas exports, that's a huge national security risk for it. It's going to start selling more gas to China while shutting off the valve to Europe. Probably in the next couple of years. What is Europe doing? Continuing to rely on Russia? No, it's building new terminals for LNG shipping from the United States and looking into tapping domestic gas reserves.

Is anyone arguing that the EU shouldn't be looking for domestic gas reserves? As far as Russia shutting off the valve to Europe - name at least a single example of when a major Nord Stream I contract was cancelled? Nord Stream II uses the exacts same frameworks. Cut the crap Gallia - you're really opposing this in the desperate hopes to force Russia to use Ukraine as a transit country - well guess what? It's not going to happen.

Of course, the contracts for Russian gas run well into the 2040s, and the political ramifications of gas contracts means that you're going to have to be thinking in terms of decades into the future. People are already talking about the potential political gains for Russia in the 2050s from its China gas pipeline and slow reduction in exports to Europe.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 7X16300244

Why would Russia slow down Russian Natural Gas to Europe, in order to promote natural gas in Asia? Can't Russia do both? Oh yeah, Russia has those natural gas capabilities.

Wrong. It's found other buyers. Turkey since 2005. China starting next year. It'll be exporting to Israel if Blue Stream II is ever built. Western Europe's days of having a captive supplier relationship with Russia are over, if they ever existed in the first place, and thankfully the EU's leaders are intelligent people who realize this.

It's not about a captive supplier - it's about market forces. Economics 101. As long as the EU can pay, (and the EU is financially better off than Russia,) then Russia will sell. If I have a store that's doing great in the EU, and I have a store that's doing great in China, and I'm opening up another store to do great in Israel - why would I shut down my store that's doing great in the EU? That makes absolutely zero sense. There's no store quota.

What other sellers? You have the United States since last year, with a moderately sized terminal in the Gulf, and with the death of TTIP it will be pretty hard to get gas to Europe without a serious political push. The Baltics don't have any other sellers. Neither does Bulgaria. Or Slovakia. Are you suggesting they should be kept on the Russian lease for sake of Western Europe?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemen ... 079cec1e2e

Thankfully, in his second Actually Good Thing (the first was bombing Assad, but that's arguably only half a good thing or maybe a quarter), Dear President has begun loosening gas/oil export regulations. Soon Europe will receive its very own red, white, and blue molecules.

The problem, your attempted derailment aside, is that LNG will cost significantly more than Russian natural gas, and the EU knows it. If the US could actually compete with Russia on a fair market level, there would be no need for this Senatorial Bill. But we all know how US views Capitalism - if US is losing, the market gets rigged, much like the Senate is trying to do here. Except this time it'll be the Europeans on the hook, so they are, quite understandably, furious.

So, you'd rather continue a growing dependency on America?

Why is dependency on Russia better than dependency on America? America has two major captive buyers: Europe and Mexico. Russia has China, Turkey, Western Europe, and possibly Israel. Clearly if you want to exploit someone with a major bargaining position, going with the United States would be better. You'd have a much larger share of overall gas exports, unlike Russia, which is going to be decreasing its share of gas exports to Europe. Because Europe is its enemy.

"Dependency" on Russia is better - because that "dependency" is basked on market prices, rather than inflated prices. People want to pay the market price for natural gas. People do not want to pay the inflated price for natural gas. Duh!

It's considered a huge security risk.

They've more or less succeeded now, and the NS II pipeline is basically going to be redundant in a couple of years when Russia cuts down even further on its gas exports to Europe. It's just busywork for bureaucrats and money laundering for oligarchs, but it gets the Kremlin a foot in the door in Brussels and Berlin. Short-term, it's great for both parties. Long-term, it's another Franco-Russian Alliance.

If it's going to be redundant, why not force Russia to pay for it, and then have GazProm go bankrupt? Because it's not going to be redundant. "This redundant pipeline will produce a Franco-Russian Alliance" - what the actual fuck?

Ditching NS II and focusing on building up domestic LNG production while switching to USA for gas imports would ensure a better long-term position for Europe with its traditional allies. Ultimately, Western Europe is going to have to pick between USA or Russia to be a client to, and ideally it will pick USA, but that would require long-term commitment, while Nord Stream II is an easy Faustian bargain that is supported by small thinking Western petrocompanies and Russian oligarchs alike.

No, the EU has no obligation to pick between the two. That's just a lie.

The ultimate problem is that a lot of European countries don't like the idea that they can't achieve true energy independence and have to rely on an outside party, but such is geography. The way to fix Europe's energy problem isn't to build more pipelines to Russia, it's to build more LNG terminals in both Western and Eastern Europe. Trade with USA, but also with loads of other people, and get Russia out of Europe.

So the Europeans should pay more money for natural gas to satisfy the whims of the US Senate - oh hey there Germany, enjoying your relationship as a vassal?

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/e ... O_IDA(2016)570462_EN.pdf

But that would require a long-term, unified strategy, which is something the EU is notoriously garbage at. So instead it will be prodded, pulled, and tugged by both sides in an economic proxy war. Because apparently Russia is "European" now and has equal say to Germany and Austria in the EU's energy policies.

No, it would require Europe to pay for America's Russophobia, something that Europeans, quite understandably, do not want to do. Russia's natural gas to Germany is set at a market price. Your attempts to continuously pretend otherwise, are hilarious, but rather unrealistic.

At this point it's more likely that the global geopolitics will shift. Western Europe will become aligned with Russia again and Eastern Europe will remain aligned with the United States. So we'll see, in the next war, Germans, Frenchmen, Russians, and Brits on one side; and Americans, Polish, Hungarians, and Estonians on the other.

Eastern Europe is fine with building with LNG terminals.
Western Europe is fine with being Russia's lapdog.

The division on Western and Eastern Europe on whether Russia is friend or foe is being deliberately widened by a mixture of Russian policy and Western Europe's apathy.

Actually in this case, it's Eastern Europe that's being an imperial vassal, forcing their citizens to pay higher gas prices to satisfy the whims of those who live on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. It's interesting how those favoring the Iraq War, Libyan Bombing, Syrian Civil War, Arab Spring, Austerity Reforms - those from the other side of the Atlantic, have benefited financially, and left the locals to pick up the pieces. As you've been told repeatedly - the contract is set by market price. There is no captive market. If GazProm lowers gas prices, GazProm will control more market share; if GazProm raises gas prices, GazProm will control less market share.

This is economics 101 - the people, in this case the Europeans, simply want the biggest bang for their buck, or rather, for their Euro. This argument is so common sense, that only Russophobes will find it to be pro-Russian.