112
The U.S. Is Bullying Europe Like Never Before (www.theatlantic.com)
submitted 12 hours ago by to c/world@lemmy.world
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 10 hours ago* (4 children)

Nordstream was already dead, russia wasn't gonna send anything more unless germany aligned themselves more with russia. If you claim the lack of gas caused a depression, then that blame is on russia.
Whoever blew it up for good just removed the political pressure around it.

As for that depression, iirc, Germany paid a lot but gas was never in short supply, and I don't think increased state expenditure on imports causes depression while a country is still solvent. What do you base your claim on?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 9 hours ago (3 children)

    European gas prices immediately jumped 12 percent on news of the bombing. Yes, Nordstream I had been turned off - but was unlikely to remain off for years as it has. Which is, of course, exactly why it was done, to ensure that Russian gas couldn't be shipped to Germany. The direct costs were at least 2.8 billion - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652626023292

    Whoever blew it up

    Yeah, if you think Ukraine attacked a NATO member without authorization, I have a few bridges to sell to you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

    2.8 billion is nothing. Damage due to market speculation was (very) short lived and, like, the market always spikes around. A random car bridge somewhere rusting through (thanks to germany hating trains) probanly has more impact in replacement cost and economic downturn than that.
    You can't blame the economic trend of a major country on 3 billion €.

    but was unlikely to remain off for years as it has

    I don't see why. Russia manufactured the original turning off of nordstream 1, they wouldn't have reengaged it until pro russian politicians got to power and deepened the influence by opening ns2. Which based on current trends would have been at minimum till the start of 2025 government change, or more likely still not. And who knows what it'd have done for germanys rising nazi party.

    The effects were constrained to a few months, by spring 2023 it was thoroughly patched up. Germany did invest a lot for that, but outside state finances, to the wider economy, leaving russia controlling the market speculation would have been way more damaging for way longer.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago (1 child)

    they wouldn't have reengaged it until pro russian politicians got to power

    They had it as a barganing chip, and you seem to take it as a given they wouldn't bargain with it.

    by spring 2023 it was thoroughly patched up

    No, it wasn't. Germany switched to far pricier American LNG where it has remained.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago

    No, it wasn't. Germany switched to far pricier [...] LNG

    The instability and fear, the supply since 2023 is solid and has not been doubted by anyone.

    They had it as a barganing chip, and you seem to take it as a given they wouldn't bargain with it.

    It had sat for months before, and months before that it was trickling down. Russia would have at minimum waited the entire winter too, hoping Germany would cave or act less determined to replace the supply.
    And then after that winter, would they have just resumed exports like nothing at the old low prices?

    American LNG where it has remained.

    I'd like a source on that, from what I've seen they are decreasing gas use internally to more than compensate, mainly in heating (mostly moving to heat pumps). Initially they were getting a lot of supply from inside the EU and Norway, and brokered some temporary deals with middle eastern nations (also they did have some storage to buffer it out). With LNG accounting for almost none of the total imports. The numbers I've found myself so far don't seven split out the US or middle east from the "other" category, being in the low single percent or less.

    https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2026/20260112_GAS.html
    This would be one reliable (though not terribly specific) source I found for this.

    The largest suppliers of gas were Norway (44%), the Netherlands (24%) and Belgium (21%).

    This sums to 89%. Other statistics I found split the remainder between LNG and other.


    https://www.bayern-innovativ.de/en/emagazine/detail/en/page/where-germany-gets-its-gas-from

    I don't see any notable issue in any of this.

    In looking into this I saw that the EU at large has more notable LNG imports, about half of the total, so as much as Norway and eastern (non-eu) europe combined. Which is also about as much as Russia used to supply, though has not increased by that amount so just taken up some of the slack.

    Btw. my initial guess for who did nordstream was germany itself, or in cooperation with whomever (like the us), to gain the political decisiveness to properly migrate away from russian gas without constantly fighting against people still wanting to bargain with russia. May still well have been complicit or explicit support, with various players deciding to let it happen for example. Or could have truly been a few people deciding it would be best and winging it themselves.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent