- cross-posted to:
- genzedong@lemmygrad.ml
- cross-posted to:
- genzedong@lemmygrad.ml
You must log in or # to comment.
European leadership has shown beyond all doubt that they hold American interests above those of their own people.
Got to be tied into money, ah?
I think this behavior largely ideological in nature. US installed true believers in positions of power in Europe. These people will sacrifice anyone and anything at the altar of neoliberalism.
This entire crisis has illustrated just how compromised the European nations are by American finance capital. It’s hit a point where their own national bourgeoisie have less sway over their nation’s politics than the American bourgeoisie do.
This is the sort of behaviour you’d normally expect from a semi-colony, like Argentina when it was held in thrall by the British empire. That America can do this to the Europeans, despite them pooling their power within the EU, speaks volumes about how far these countries have fallen.
The thing that strikes me the most about all this though is how anyone really feels surprised about it; there was never a world where the US would have tolerated a European power with the potential for independent action. Building up such a power economically would mean building up their own imperialist competition.
Therefore, it was a foregone conclusion that Europe’s economic development would only be tolerated so long as it served US imperialist interests; so long as they offered a lucrative market for American goods and a bloc of allies to sign off diplomatic alibis to cover up the horror of their adventures abroad while pressuring and concern trolling their enemies they can be tolerated. In the final analysis, Europe’s wealth is tolerable only so long as it can be controlled by Washington.
Very well said! Pretty wild it appears you have a more thorough understanding of the scenario than most involved. Wish the folks making decisions impacting millions had a similar understanding of the situation.
Small correction, EU and NATO are precisely the instruments which allow US to control European countries.
I agree completely with regards to NATO, but what levers does America pull with regards to the EU? Germany is the dominant player in the economic union and as far as I can tell the US has no visible way of directly steering either the European Council, European Parliament or European commission.
Check out this documentary: https://lemmy.ml/post/558998
Unless you are given to parlor games that never end, it is nearly impossible to avoid concluding that the U.S. was either directly responsible for the Nord Stream I and II sabotage or supervised those who were. If national security is at issue, it is plain that the Russians had nothing to do with it and equally plain that the culpable entity is nominally allied with Germany but has no fundamental respect for its interests.
I don’t find it difficult at all to avoid that conclusion. It is certainly possible that the US is responsible, but Russia is still on the table. There are plenty of reasons why one would want to refuse pointing fingers - and to avoid declaring war on Russia seems perfectly plausible to me. I am not saying ‘Russia did it with certainty’, but what I do think is that statements that blame either side with certainty and claim that the other position is ‘obviously’ incorrect come off as very biased.
So instead of just closing the tap, Russia blew up its own pipeline, which it just finished building last year at a cost of billions of Euros? A pipeline which would make many more billions of profit during its lifetime?
And if it really was Russia, why did they put explosives off the Danish coast, almost in NATO territory? It would be much easier near Saint Petersburg or Kaliningrad. Also, whats the reason that Denmark, Sweden and Germany refuse to release the results of their investigation? They have never been shy to accuse Russia of everything, and it would be very easy to point out if there were Russian ships near the explosion site.
So instead of just closing the tap, Russia blew up its own pipeline, which it just finished building last year at a cost of billions of Euros? A pipeline which would make many more billions of profit during its lifetime?
Yes. The damage is repairable, so the certainty of the cost is overstated. Someone with the power to make this decision can believe that the value of sending a message or the threat or escalation is worth the potential financial loss. There are many possibilities.
And if it really was Russia, why did they put explosives off the Danish coast, almost in NATO territory? It would be much easier near Saint Petersburg or Kaliningrad.
To send a message. Otherwise they would just close the tap.
Also, whats the reason that Denmark, Sweden and Germany refuse to release the results of their investigation? They have never been shy to accuse Russia of everything, and it would be very easy to point out if there were Russian ships near the explosion site.
Because they might feel that publicly acknowledging that Russia launched this attack will put them in a position in which they will have to declare war. How can they tell the voters “we know Russia did this, but we don’t want to escalate the conflict to avoid further damage to the economy, so we will let them get away with it” - that would be very very unpopular.
I am not saying “I know what happened, and this is what happened” - or even that this particular scenario is more likely than an alternative one. I definitely don’t know what happened. The arguments that I have read make me think “yes, that is a plausible scenario”, but I don’t think it is sensible to follow a logical path, show that it makes sense, and then claim that the truth is obvious. What actually happened could easily be a lot more complicated and involve some behind-the-scenes politics that very few people are aware of.
