17.11.2021: Sky News UK talks to the ukrainian ambassador to the United Kingdom, Vadym Prystaiko:
At 7:30 in:
Vadym Prystaiko: “What I’m here to say [is], that [the] ukranian pipeline could provide [the] european union, all european nations with the gas easily. We have enough capacity. For the russians are doing this -- they [are] just rather weaponizing the gas.”
Sky News: “But you think that this is the play by Russia to get this pipeline approved, and then perhaps they’d back off?”
Vadym Prystaiko: “Obviously they will use this gas, they wont use [the] ukrainian pipeline, which will untie their hands in Ukraine, in the ukraininian campaign, which is yet another risk [for] a real military invasion.”
Skynews: “Are you worried about the german attitude to this, I mean the pipeline, in the main will start supplying germany. We hear that outgoing chancellor Angela Merkel has continuing decent relations with the kremlin and that in actual fact has overridden president Biden in his opposition to North Stream 2?”
Vadym Prystaiko: “I am worrying, because the germans were not understanding, for all these years and years. They tried it [?] before. I remember the predecessor of mother Merkel who promised to help us with that, but then became a deputy chief of gasprom himself. So when we are talking about germans, we have to understand how closely they are connected economically to russians, and how much of their own calculations of whats going on in their neighborhood actually depends on russian gas, or something else from the russian federation.”
src: click
72 days later:
28.01.2022: NPR talks to the spokesman for the United States Department of State, Ned Price:
“I want to be very clear: if Russia invades Ukraine one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward,” Price told National Public Radio. “I’m not going to get into the specifics. We will work with Germany to ensure it does not move forward.”
src: click
Someone paint me the throughline here.
1. Did Russia escalate military tensions to get North Stream 2 approved? Answer: [Implied: Yes - Then explicitly:] Well obviously it reduces their involvement in day to day politics in the Ukraine, which is another risk for invasion.
Meaning - russia escalated tensions, to get North Stream 2 approved (wait what?!), so it can decouple from Ukraine economically, which increases the risk of invasion? So this isnt about Russia wanting to prevent Ukraine from becoming a Nato partner, because Ukraine wants Russia involved in their domestic politics, which would prevent them from (most likely - ever) becoming a Nato member state?
Reflecting on the ECFRs position of “Europe needs to decouple from Russias energy markets longterm”, this means, what?
2. It’s better for lower military tensions in the Ukraine, to have Russia involved actively in their day to day politics for as long as possible?
It’s better for lower political tensions in the Ukraine, to have Russia involved in their day to day politics for as long as possible?
If Russia invades in the Ukraine, the US will make sure, that North Stream 2 never is opened, so russian gas coming into the EU has to go through the ukrainian pipeline, not reducing throughput - but increasing Ukraines political dependency on Russia? Russias political dependency on Ukraine? Reducing the EUs political dependency on Russia?
I thought Russia escalated the conflict to get Nord Stream 2 approved? *sarcasm*
3. In actual fact, Germany has overridden Bidens concerns (Wait, and Ted Cruz sent the memo?) on North Stream 2 to ensure, that it becomes active.
In actual fact, the United States Department of State has overridden Germanys concerns on North Stream 2 to ensure, that it never becomes active.
Nachtrag: Tatsächlich. Das alles muss wohl so sein, denn die österreichische Qualitätszeitung der Standard findet schon wieder auf wundersame Weise Kommentatoren (vom Institute for Euro-Atlantic Cooperation) die dafür eine ganz einfache Erklärung haben:
Entgegen seinen Reden ficht Putin nicht die Nato-Erweiterung an, sondern das Recht der Ukraine, selbstbestimmt Entscheidungen zu treffen und Bündnisse zu schmieden, die dem Land zu einem Aufschwung verhelfen.
src: click
Alles klar jetzt?
Nachtrag 2: Es wird noch besser - Nachdem die US auf NPR gestern “angekündigt” hat eine Red Line “North Stream 2 kommt nicht, wenn eine Invasion der Ukraine stattfindet” mit den europäischen Partnern “zu verhandeln”, und zwar so - dass man sich sicher sein kann - dass das in der Form kommt und gilt, egal was die Europäer sagen - hat jetzt eine ehemalige Sprecherin des US Außenministeriums angekündigt, dass dies eine gemeinsame Position der US und der EU sei.
(DW: “US and Germany step up pipeline warnings to Russia”)
Euronews hat das aktuell mit “Washington droht Moskau mit dem Ende der Gas-Pipeline” im Ticker. Es gibt bis jetzt noch kein Statement eines Regierungsverantwortlichen in Deutschland, oder auf EU Ebene dazu. DW übernimmt es, ohne Quellen im Europäischen oder Deutschen Raum zu nennen, und schaltet anstatt dessen zu einem Korrespondenten in Kiev, und die tatsächliche Änderung der Position entspricht der Größenordnung von “vor einigen Tagen spricht Biden noch von Unterschieden zwischen einer kleinen und einer größeren Invasion”, und “Deutschlands Position bis dato war, dass es sich bei Nord Stream 2 um ein Wirtschaftsprojekt handle, und es nicht von politischen Sanktionen betroffen sein würde”.
Was hat diese Position geändert? Moralische Argumente? Dürfte die die Europäische Bevölkerung auch mal hören, oder…
Nein? Ok - dann halt nicht. Eine ehemalige Sprecherin des US Außenministeriums reicht ja völlig… (DW dazu: “A clearer picture is emerging.” Deus Ex machina. Niemand wars. Plötzlich wars da. Es gebiert sich sozusagen aus dem Schaume der Brandung selbst.) Nachfragen wie sie denn dazu kommt das anzunehmen von US Reporterkollegen wurden abgeschmettert. Siehe Link.
Nachtrag 3: BBC to the rescue:
“Questions remain over how the US could stop it (‘it’ being NS2 in Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Victoria Nulands statement that “If Russia invades in Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward”, and that being a joint position of the US and the EU) but its the kind of bullish talk one northern european Nato ally thinks is their best bet at stopping an attack.”
What a nice SNAFU… US talked to one northern european nation (wonder which one), then went in front of the press and announced, that this would be “the joint european position”, when it wasn’t. One nation, the EU - what does it matter, right?
Nachtrag 4: Die offizielle Position Deutschlands verbleibt aktuell beim Statement von Baerbock von vor zwei Tagen, dass die Zukunft von Nord Stream 2 ein Teil einer breiten Reihe an Sanktionen auf Russische Aggressionen sein könnte. Siehe: click
