By GLOBSEC Policy Institute, AMO, Freedom House Lithuania, and the GMFUS.
Good to know that not only China is buying influence by courting smaller countries within the EU (*wave bundle of cash emoji*) for political motives. Just throw in the word democracy about 200 times and you should be fine.
Sh*t, a former US ambassador is not on message.
Better not report any of it in the mainstream of western media. Better not ask him to comment. Better make up talking points (to be used in polit talkshows), that the issue started in the early nineties. Better finance thinktanks and entire institutes fully. Better push for statements of non german politicians about germanys politics, and take over the media circuit to make the inquiry “if germany is not in line with US announcements” an accusation and the most pressing issue over the past week.
Better go with western propaganda.
Matlock has taught diplomacy at Duke University, Princeton University, Columbia University and Hamilton College. In a 1997 interview, Matlock offers some advice to prospective diplomats: have an optimistic nature, get a liberal education, do not expect to change the world, know the country, know your own country, faithfully represent your government, find the mutual interests, and remember that timing is everything.[13]
[…]
Since leaving government service, Matlock has occasionally joined with other experts to criticize U.S. foreign policy. On June 26, 1997, he signed an Open Letter to President Bill Clinton criticizing plans for NATO expansion.[60] His reason for opposition, as given in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was his belief that NATO expansion would preclude significant nuclear arms reduction with Russia, and consequently increase the risk of a nuclear attack by terrorists.[61]
Matlock drew the ire of many Republicans during the 2004 presidential election campaign when he signed the Official Statement of Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, which criticized the policies of President George W. Bush and endorsed Senator John Kerry for president.[62]
On Jan 4, 2007, Matlock joined with George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn to advocate a goal of a world free of nuclear weapons.[63] On 23 September 2008 after a two-day conference at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, he joined several other former ambassadors to issue a joint statement on how Russia and the United States might move forward in their relations.[64] He has endorsed the Global Zero Initiative, a plan to eliminate all nuclear weapons by 2030.[65] Matlock has also signed an open letter of May 13, 2011 asking the implementors of the New START treaty between the U.S. Russia to make public the locations and aggregate numbers of nuclear weapons, in order to promote transparency and reduce mistrust.[66][67]
On Jan 18, 2011 he co-signed an open letter to President Obama urging a United Nations resolution condemning Israeli settlements in the occupied territory.[68]
Matlock has been openly critical of the American mass media’s coverage of the Ukraine crisis. On Jan 26, 2022 he published an review of Richard Sakwa’s article “Whisper it, but Putin has a point in Ukraine” on his personal blog, stating agreement that Russia desires a neutral Ukraine and pushing back against claims that Russia seeks to annex Ukraine.[69] On Feb 15, 2022, he published an op-ed in Antiwar.com, questioning the validity of the media narrative around the current state of Russia–Ukraine relations, stating “Maybe I am wrong – tragically wrong – but I cannot dismiss the suspicion that we are witnessing an elaborate charade, grossly magnified by prominent elements of the American media, to serve a domestic political end.”[70]
src: click
Josep Borrell says it’s ‘quite reasonable and quite clear’ that controversial pipeline would be stopped in event of a Russian invasion.
[…]
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today program about potential sanctions on Russia, Borrell said it was “quite reasonable and quite clear” that Nord Stream 2 “will not” be allowed to operate in the event of a Russian strike.
src: click
Without words.
Überschrift bezieht sich auf den selben Komiker, der unten die Rüstungsstrategie der US auch für den Laien begreifbar macht - und soll in etwa ausdrücken - die US sind so von ihren leider nicht wählbaren Eliten indoktriniert und in Sachzwängen gebunden, dass sie gerne für die Mobilisierung ihrer Wählerschichten im mittleren Westen einen degenerierten ultrakonservativen Gottesprediger an die Staatsspitze wählen, der im Idealfall glaubt Gottes Werk zu vollenden. Weil dann hat er genug Demut und schaut auch auf die Leute - oder irgend ein Bullsh*t den niemand beim zweiten Hinsehen auch nur annähernd glaubt, aber der die emotionale Entscheidungsfindung der Wähler highjackt.
Das war vor 30 Jahren. So alt war der Sager des Komikers. Heute ist das alles noch ein wenig degenerierter…
Was war nochmal Bidens Ticket ins Oval Office? Jahrzehntelange prozedurale Erfahrung in Politik und Verwaltung, sowie Sachkompetenz, oder?
Für NBC reichts.
Oh bitte und auch inhaltlich dranbleiben. “There was no way, we would ever going to unite Afghanistan, no way that was gonna happen.” Oh REALLY? Geschichtsstunde? Kurzzusammenfassung der Pressemitteilungen des Außenamtes seit 2001? Größter Fehler im Wiederaufbauprozess des Iraks? Aber wenns der Gottkaiser voll der Gnaden, dem Idioten von NBC in nem persönlichen Interview verzählt wie alternativlos das war, dann muss das wohl schon immer die Wahrheit gewesen sein. Bloß nicht die Position bei Kriegsbeginn nachschlagen.
Das war der Moment in dem die Position geändert wurde -
und das hier war die Position zu Kriegsbeginn (im zweiten Absatz angerissen).
Für NBC reichts.
… future scenarios of Nato development in Europe - report released today. Roughcut, how to get Europe more resilliant under war/proxy war conditions.
With it also being paramount that Nato will grow and change in the coming years. With Europe potentially being under war.
Fun.
And so sensitive in regards to the situation currently evolving.
edit:
“Now on Ukraine, where the rules based order is under direct assault, we suggest a more proactive, strategy driven approach to NATO partnerships, including the Ukraine deterrence initiative. That would make it a strategic priority for the alliance, to do everything possible, short of an article five guarantee, to help Ukraine and other partners, that are threatened by Moskow, to defend themselves and deter aggression. This Ukraine deterrence initiative could be an extension of the enhanced opportunities partners program, at a time when NATO membership of the Ukraine is really not on the agenda.”
Ah, a NATO build-up without a NATO membership. Excellent.
“As Julian outlined in his overview - we argue, that the new strategic concept must commit the alliance to a step change in the balance of responsibility between the United States and the european members of the alliance, to include Canada as well. This is no longer just a matter of overcoming long standing disputes over burden sharing in defense spending, between the United States and Europe - its now a strategic necessity, because the rise of china as a strategic competitor creates US need to shift its strategic focus to the indopacific region. And under these circumstances, Nato can no longer afford it excessive reliance on the United states, either for collective defense, or for crisis management and cooperative security missions beyond europes borders. Clearly - in an article five contingency between russia in the baltic or black sea regions, the United States may not always be able to deploy adequate reinforcements to Europe, because of competing demands on its forces in the indo-pacific. So european allies will need to be able to pick up most of the slack. Now similarly resource constraints and shifting priorities may also lead the US to limit its involvement in the middle east, africa, and south asia. Or at least to be more selective in when and where it engages. That means, that the United States will increasingly look to the european allies and the european union to shoulder more of the burden for crisis management and partner capacity building in their own neighborhood.”
Same stance - as announced by Peter Zeihan and mentioned in this blog, one year ago.
This is somewhat important, as the (transatlantic) thinktank circuit is currently trying to establish that Putin (himself probably) is trying to drive a wedge into the US/European coalition, while in reality the strategic focus of the US has shifted to the indo-pacific and will do more so in the future regardless of what happens in these parts of the world. An expansionist China is too much of a strategic threat to the US - while Europe doesnt hold the same value anymore (not militarily, not regarding energy security, not in terms of trade (US developing Mexico and India to be consumer economies), not in terms of innovation either (has more to do with the fact that energy security in the US in the coming three decades is not relying on anything that Europe produces. They’ve become net exporters.)
Why is the first thing that comes to mind “Fare well a**holes? And thanks for all the hell raising in the past days!”?
US vows to stop Nord Stream 2 if Russia invades Ukraine
US President Joe Biden has said there is no chance of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project going should Russia mount an offensive. Chancellor Olaf Scholz, on his first White House visit in office, was more guarded.
src: click
DW.com managed to misrepresent germanys position (several reporters and ankers on record saying that “now the potential reaction from the west and EU countries has become more clear, and unified” in the past days, while none of that was true.). They’ve managed to miss, that there was a difference in positions for the past week. They’ve managed to miss, that the US announced a “common position of the US and the EU” on this unilaterally, thereby suddenly contradicting the german governments public position. They’ve managed to miss, that that was seen as an outrage by people following political reporting on the issue closely. They’ve managed to miss the BBC rebuttal, that indicated, that this wasnt a premedetated move by the US, but only a “mistake”, after the US spoke to some northern european countries, then announcing a common position that never was one. They managed to miss the aggressive nature in the US announcing that statement in todays announcement, again. (Second time in a row isnt a mistake anymore.) They’ve managed to miss asking for further clarification on part of the german government, because the position “its part of a wide range of meassures” doesnt necessarily mean, we state, that we’ll stop it outright, if there is any kind of conflict in the coming days. Not because thats an important distinction in itself necessarily, but because it leaves room for diplomacy after the fact, without pronouncing it a red line - like the US just did, again. Without caring for the european position in the least (as far as I understand france isnt in line with the US announcement either, but some of the founding NATO members within the EU are). With questionable jurisdiction in the matter. They’ve managed to prolong this effing state of “who the f*ck makes european security and energy policy decisions” for over a f*cking week, not do any reporting on it and now present another pressure play from the US in a “manner of fact” way.
What the f*ck?
Past developments layed out, with primary sources linked, in here:
click
edit: DW now (a few hours later) is doubling down, instead of admitting their mistake:
The German chancellor came to the White House empty-handed. His hollow reassurances about Germany’s commitment to Ukraine will have done little to convince his critics in Washington, says DW’s Michaela Küfner.
src: click
Calling it a missed opportunity, still having no idea that they were wrong in reporting this all the way. Still showing no signs of correcting themselves, or admitting any of it. If you go with the most hawkish trans-atlantic think tank stance, its your best option in todays journalism landscape, by proxy, it seems. At least for DW.com
Its time for another overview on how transatlantic PR works in this case.
1. US teasing, that in case of an attack the North Stream 2 Pipeline would never become active, in an NPR Podcast.
DWs reporting: Rather matter of fact.
2. US, one day later, unilaterally announcing, that there is a joint european position on that Nord Stream 2 would never become active, if any form of invasion would take place. Contradicting the german governments position on the issue, at the time - in a public announcement. Thats after Biden had to be corrected talking about a difference between a smaller and a large form invasion earlier. Because apparently that difference didnt exist from the US’ point of view. (Even though Biden publicly announced it did.) Thats two pretty large scale scandals in a row - that none of the pundits in any of the western media outlets had anything to say about.
DWs reporting: “Finally a unified strategy, and a clear position, we are now seeing consequences emerge”.
3. A day later Germany still not changing their position (Nord Stream 2 will be part of a range of actions, if an invasion takes place.)
DWs reporting: “Still a unified strategy and a clear message, that if there is an invasion North Stream 2 will never become active.”
4. BBC produces a report in which it announces, that there still is severe uncertainty over how europe would proceed in detail in case of an invasion, regarding what would happen to Nordstream 2, and only on that stance - mentioning, that the cause was the US talking to “one northern european alley” and then having announced a unified European and US position.
DWs reporting: None existent.
5. The US repeating the prior made statement - with US journalists questioning the speaker, on what basis those remarks were made, and why the US had the presumption that this would be the unified stance. Journalists are shut down, and not given an answer.
DWs reporting: None existent.
6. By now the german talkshow circuit (Anne Will, …) is filled with coached pundits, that cant talk freely on issues in the Ukraine, but have very prominent talking points, that germany is not pulling its weight, bringing in the gambit of the 5000 helmets delivered to the Ukraine only - which Klitschko was on a press circuit for - but which if looked at closely was fulfilling a demand for supplies the Ukraine had made prior, and then turned around into ridicule to increase public pressure on the german government, prior to the US visit. Ukraine officials later backtracked, and went the potential deniability route of “the number (5000) had been the issue”, and too small, although they didnt specify a number before, just that they needed helmets.
DWs reporting: Germany is being criticised by its allies for not pulling its weight.
7. Scholz announces his talking points for the meeting with Biden prior to the flight.
DWs reporting: By then having switched onto the “Germany is being critiziced for being too inactive, and not providing weapon shipments” beat, with think tank experts featured criticizing germany for “being unclear in their stance towards their allies” - which never was the case, because the gambit used to announce that was now a combination of “Germany doesnt want NS2 to be used as a red line in threatening russia” and germany not delivering weaponry into conflict areas. Both of which were long standing positions, for weeks, at that point.
8. Scholz still using a different wording after the meeting underlining that germanys position hadnt changed. While Biden tries to strong arm the red line position once more, by announcing, that the US - and not its partners, would prevent NS2 from becoming active in case of an invasion.
DWs reporting: NEWSFLASH! Germany is using different wording!
9. DW reporting that the meeting had been a flop, because germany went to the US without making any further concessions coining it as “At every step of the way, Scholz has avoided addressing the issue directly. Instead, he sounds like a broken record churning out the same non-committal statements the public has become accustomed to after his first 62 days in office.”. Not mentioning the 5000 helmets stand in for the criticism in the least, because that only was used as a pressure point prior to the talks, and now has become entirely - useless it seems. As germany hasnt changed position. So… Not an issue anymore, right? Lets just drop reporting, without mentioning, that that was a gambit employed by the Ukraine, reacting outraged at the fulfillment of an actual request made. (You can see that exchange here: click)
DW never admitting the mistake on their part. Never looking at it from the european perspective, never acknowledging, that the US tried to pull a fast one here, … Plainly repeating the narrative, that Scholz had failed in his mission of outlining germanys position. (Which by then had become a failure to merge positions, with the US announcement.). Which at the time it was made, was entirely made up. Just as made up, as the “unified US and european position” on making NS2 a red line, which they reported for two days, without correcting it - and still haven’t corrected up until now.
Also - as DW is entirely relying in their interpretation on think tanks like the German Council on Foreign relations (thats possible?), may be it would be interesting to hear their position on future developments in the matter.
Which is a not so reasonable - Everything short of a war is “very difficult to imagine”.
See:
Lets see on that point, how accurate they turn out to be in the coming weeks. Just know that one thing will remain certain. DW will ask them for their assessment in a daily segment in the future as well - and then model their editorial position somewhere around the statements given.
edit: Just so you know what to think and feel, when talking about this story, the austrian Die Presse also is very helpful in instilling that in you.
Olaf Scholzes press appearance was “bizarre”, because he didnt fulfill hawkish transatlantic thinktank expectations. See: click Its so helpful to always get told what to think and feel, without getting the background on a story.
Attract images in the youtube preroll (what you’d see when you mouse over this video on youtube) for news clips, with three year olds with cardboard weapons in their hands sounding *piew* *piew* *piew* - which is outright heroic, because its the clip for “US troops arrive in Poland to deter & defend”.
Interviews with the people on the streets containing the following sentiment: “Ukraine has been in a state of war since 2014, some of my friends have not returned from the front, and I’m constantly thinking about it, it touches every family - we are not just preparing for an attack, its happening already. We are not preparing for anything, this - is simply our life.”
Ah, the healthy western propaganda. Child with cardboard automatic weapon and red wool beanie, and psychologically instable young women conflating the death of her friends with purpose - even more so, with it being a necessary part of their daily lives, that will prolong into the future. For the nation, for future generations, for the non resolved part of the trauma that is showing…
Ah… That is good TV. What wonderful sentiments. “For freedom” is so abstract compared to that, wheres the human angle on that…
The demonstration to stop russian aggression then is brought to you as the third element of this very informative clip. Wasn’t “on message” enough, I presume… At least they showed clips of people singing the Ukraine anthem with their fist on their heart, thats at least pathos!
Lets go to our correspondent next, ask them some question about how the EU sees this, that no one is asking. But that for some reason also is their thumbnail title.
No need to contextualize what we just showed.
edit: Just for comparisons sake, this is the attract roll CBS put together. Same news story.
edit2: I’ll also drop this here (Additional information (on what drives public sentiments)).
Article: Why the EU needs Russian energy giant Gazprom
Angle:
“Gazprom uses its market power by influencing prices through the amount of gas that it supplies to Europe,” energy expert Georg Zachmann from the Brussels-based Bruegel think tank told DW.”
Reasoning:
“There is a kind of competition between the European regulators who are trying to create a market with unified prices and Gazprom which is trying to impose different prices in different countries,” explained Zachmann.
While Gazprom insists that it has honored all its long-term supply commitments, Zachmann said that the company was actually supplying less gas to the market with short-term contracts.
Zachmann said that the short-term market had become increasingly important in recent years because there was an attempt to become less dependent on Gazprom in the long run.
So, that Gazprom and with it russia doesnt want to rely on short term contracting, because it encompasses an attempt to become less dependant on Gazprom overall is… wait for it…
“Gazprom is fulfilling its contracts, that is true, but only at the lowest level of its commitments,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen pointed out recently. She said that other suppliers had increased their deliveries in view of the rapidly rising demand and record prices.
Von der Leyen added that Gazprom was behaving in a strange way, considering that more gas was not being supplied despite high demand. She also told the German daily Handelsblatt that the fact that the company belonged to the Russian state raised doubts as to its reliability.
STRANGE BEHAVIOR considering that not more gas was supplied, given the high demand.
But Gazprom is fulfilling its contracts, thats true.
But this is all raising doubts, because relying on the Russian state raises doubts on reliability overall.
But Gazprom is fulfilling contracts.
Yes, but we expected more than just fulfilling contracts.
While threatening sanctions at the same time.
edit: Short interlude, to dilute the hate in this posting with a little bit of comedy.
And then, when german suppliers finally put in a bigger order a few days ago, Gazprom reports, that capacity on the Ukraine pipeline was booked within a day, and delivery started within a day or two…
But its strange behavior, that it wasn’t more, before that happened.
Because Gazprom was just fulfilling their contracts.
Because of this excellent effing logic, and certainly not because of any alterior motives, UvdL announced the following in the same Interview with the “Handelsblatt”.
If Gazprom were to receive instructions from the Kremlin to stop supplying gas to the EU, there could be significant shortages.
Von der Leyen said that she did not believe it would come to that. Since the Russian economy is so dependent on energy exports, it would not make sense to jeopardize its relationship with its biggest client and investor.
But she told Handelsblatt that the EU and the US were working to increase supplies of liquefied natural gas from Qatar or the US. Negotiations are to take place this coming Monday in Washington DC.
So because we dont believe, that Russia would cause significant shortages of gas supplies in Europe out of their own volition, basically because of the entire economic design of the venture to begin with, the EU now has to work with the US to increase supplies of LNG from Qatar, or the US.
AM I GOING INSANE, OR IS IT THE WORLD AROUND ME?
edit: Bloomberg article has more details:
Traders are watching every move by Europe’s top supplier, focusing on how much gas is delivered beyond contracted volumes. Auctions of pipeline capacity for December run next Monday, which will cast a light on whether extra shipments could materialize. Additional bookings may be likely if Gazprom sees progress in the certification of the contentious Nord Stream 2 pipeline, analysts have said.
News article was from November 10th 2021. That was after Gazprom booked pipeline capacity over Ukraine to deliver according to contract obligations.
So lets summerize. Because Europe moved away from long term procurement deals, endangering energy security, while Germany set into action plans to exit from coal and nuclear energy simultaneously, and stopped North Stream 2, on the political level, because of U.S. intervention at the licensing stage, Gazprom stopped to supply spot markets with (by then more expensive) natural gas - at “expected volumes”, expected, because it was the intended goal of the EU to decrease energy dependency on russia, so they went into day trading it in larger volumes, and spot markets instead -- which now has caused UvdL to anounce, that this would have been “strange behavior” of Gazprom - that they didnt just supply the daytrading sector with the same amount as before, and thereby causing questions over russian reliability in the energy procurement sector - while at the same time stating, that the russian economy would falter, if they ever did so (at any extent that would endanger EU energy security), and that it wasnt very likely -- and because of that, its now in the interest of energy supply stability to diversify procurement, and go with LNG from the US or Qatar (who knows, certainly not UvdL), which needs an extension of the LNG infrastructure within the EU, which the EU is backing, but which is usually privately funded (with investment guarantees given out), and only just became interesting for investors in the sector, because of rising gas prices. Oh and that on its own (diversification) will raise effective procurement prices. Also slowing down the sustainable energy transition - which still is the main project of the UvdL presidency, apparently.
No - checks out. Why should journalism report anything else. Or ask any questions.
Oh, and btw. the LNG industry has a new leading exporting nation.
Oh, and the singular cause for higher US natural gas prices was “the arctic cold snap”, of course.
Theres good news in all this as well, of course -
Goldman: Ukraine Conflict Could Double EU Natural Gas Prices
WAIT THE UKRAINE CONFLICT? I THOUGHT IT WAS RUSSIAS UNRELIABILITY ON THE SPOTMARKETS! (Because if it wasnt, it would have been EU threats of sanctions, playing a major role, surely…)
AM I GOING INSANE, OR IS IT THE WORLD AROUND ME? (Sh*t they are lying to us!™)
DW news story:
Germany must cut reliance on Russian gas, minister says
Germany’s Economy Minister Robert Habeck warned against Europe’s No.1 economy becoming a “pawn” in Russia’s game. Natural gas stockpiles across the EU are at their lowest in years as tensions over Ukraine intensify.
What did Habeck say?
“We must improve our preparedness for next winter,” the Green Party politician told the newspapers of the Funke Media Group and the French regional daily Ouest-France.Habeck said the Ukraine crisis is forcing Germany to “create other import opportunities and to diversify its supply, including infrastructural issues.”
“We have to act here and better secure ourselves. If we don’t, we become a pawn in the game [of Russia].”
[…]
Germany remains reliant on Russian gas for over a third of its needs as it phases out coal and nuclear energies.
14th paragraph from the top:
He went on to criticize the gas market for being completely deregulated and hinted that the government may have to play a greater role.
src: click
Why is this important?
Because this is how RT (via fefe, don’t read them otherwise :)) is reporting the same story:
Gazprom hat den Gashahn wieder aufgedreht.
while some EU officials are accusing Gazprom of deliberately withholding supplies. However, Gazprom says additional supplies were not booked before February 2.
Na sowas. Stellt sich raus: Wenn man bei denen was kauft, dann liefern die das auch. Und zwar fristgemäß und in voller Höhe.
Können wir vielleicht jetzt aufhören so zu tun, als sei das Schuld der Russen, dass unsere Konzerne die für unsere Bürger gemeinten Gasreserven zwecks Profitmaximierung auf dem Spotmarkt verhökert haben?
src: click
RT goes into more detail as well:
Gazprom has resumed gas supplies to Europe through Ukraine, booking 109 million cubic meters of daily pipeline capacity, Bloomberg reported on Tuesday. Under the five-year contract, which expires in 2024, the company is expected to deliver 40 billion cubic meters of gas per year to Europe via Ukraine. The news triggered a long-anticipated decline in gas prices, with March futures dropping below $900 per thousand cubic meters.
January sales of Russian natural gas outside the former Soviet Union saw a massive drop of 41.3% year-on-year, while the country’s overall production has increased, Russian energy major Gazprom reported on Tuesday.
European inventory levels have reportedly sunk to historic lows over the past several months, sending energy prices in the region soaring, while some EU officials are accusing Gazprom of deliberately withholding supplies. However, Gazprom says additional supplies were not booked before February 2.
“The Company’s gas deliveries are carried out as requested by consumers in full compliance with contractual obligations,” Gazprom said in a press release.
Gazprom said earlier this month it hadn’t booked any monthly transit capacity via the Yamal-Europe gas pipeline [the one going through Ukraine] for February. However, the company may still book the route via daily auctions.
The pipeline, which usually accounts for about 15% of Russia’s annual gas exports to Europe and Turkey, has been working in reverse mode since late December, putting additional pressure on European energy prices.
Meanwhile, working gas inventories in Europe’s underground gas storage facilities were lagging behind last year’s level by 27.2% as of January 30, Gazprom said on Tuesday, citing data from Gas Infrastructure Europe.
Over 81% of the fuel delivered during the summer is already pumped out from the facilities, according to the company, while “the total amount of working gas inventories in European UGS facilities was as low as 38.1 billion cubic meters on January 30, falling by 2.7 billion cubic meters below the historical minimum for this date.”
Meaning, as gas prices soared, european providers stopped ordering, because they were betting on lower prices on spotmarkets, because it was indicated, that the price shock had external causes, part of which would have been related to acts of nature beyond human control. So there was an expectancy of prices falling again, over time. Russian gas wasnt going through the Ukraine for that period of time, because russia had enough capacity over the remaining pipeline network to deliver the booked amounts without shipping them through Ukraine. This now changed, on the same day, or the day after (unclear) european suppliers increased orders.
Three more steps to fully understand the logic here.
Energy prices for gas increased in the US as well, (opening up the Yamal-Europe pipeline actually increased them further), as - again acts of nature beyond control are cited to be a cause there as well. In fact, U.S. Natural Gas Prices Jumped by 10% on Wednesday alone, cited cause: “Frigid weather”.
That was following the single most rapid climb in gas prices ever, in a single day in the US, a week earlier.
Opening up the Yamal-Europe pipeline has also increased the gas price - after a mini slump, because again russia saw 41.3% less demand year on year, despite hitting an all time high in gas production. (What dropped according to RT were the futures, so speculation on long term price increases.)
At the same time this happens:
The Global Gas Crisis Has Made American LNG Hot Again
The global gas crunch and skyrocketing prices in Europe and Asia are laying the foundations for a revival in final investment decisions in new liquefied natural gas (LNG)
src: click
That was step one.
Step two is now looking at Habecks quote in context.
Germany’s Economy Minister Robert Habeck warned against Europe’s No.1 economy becoming a “pawn” in Russia’s game. Natural gas stockpiles across the EU are at their lowest in years as tensions over Ukraine intensify.
Who stopped ordering gas?
“We must improve our preparedness for next winter,” the Green Party politician told the newspapers of the Funke Media Group and the French regional daily Ouest-France.
Habeck said the Ukraine crisis is forcing Germany to “create other import opportunities and to diversify its supply, including infrastructural issues.”
“Diversifying”, is only possible if American LNG markets are setting investment decisions right now, and they are setting them based on:
The Global Gas Crisis Has Made American LNG Hot Again
The global gas crunch and skyrocketing prices in Europe and Asia are laying the foundations for a revival in final investment decisions in new liquefied natural gas (LNG)
src: click
As well as the 14th paragraph from the top for DW.com:
He [Habeck] went on to criticize the gas market for being completely deregulated and hinted that the government may have to play a greater role.
src: click
Third step is to understand the “new role governments should play in co-regulating energy markets”.
The German Marshall Fund of the United States released a press statement two days ago.
EU-US Energy Cooperation to Address Climate Change
In 2022, the biggest existential threat to the health, prosperity, and existence of humans on Earth is climate change. Massive efforts are needed to urgently mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and, in parallel, support adaptation measures for those already affected by its negative impact. On the occasion of the EU-US Energy Council meeting in February 2022, it is useful to recall the dramatic impact of the European Recovery Program—the Marshall Plan—on the reconstruction of Europe; that the financial, technical, and political support of the United States to both former friends and foes in Europe were essential in re-establishing democracy and growth in a Europe devastated by internal strife and war. Seventy-five years since Secretary of State George Marshall announced the plan, and 50 years since the German Marshall Fund was established to build greater transatlantic and international cooperation, it is a timely moment to reflect on how the European and American powers can work together globally to address climate change immediately, adequately, and innovatively to ensure global prosperity and democracy. The cooperation of the transatlantic powers to transfer regulatory best practices and new technologies in the clean energy transition can help all global partners attain net-zero emissions by 2050. In addition, technical and financial assistance to those suffering most from the consequences of climate change must be provided to help them to urgently take measures to adapt and protect themselves.
[…]
Hydrogen
Following on from better management of electricity grids and greater supply of renewable energy, “excess” renewable electricity can be used to generate clean hydrogen. The United States and the EU have already begun cooperating bi- and multilaterally on driving forward a hydrogen market and need further impetus from regulatory, infrastructure, and investment perspectives to ensure that this component of the energy mix is in place and operational at scale. Hydrogen storage can be used to offset variability in renewable electricity.With respect to hydrogen generated from natural gas, better and more efficient carbon capture and storage technologies at a lower cost should be encouraged to ensure that “blue” hydrogen can be ramped up as a transition fuel in parallel to the development of “green” hydrogen. The cost-benefit analysis will depend to a large degree on the market prices of natural gas; its availability; carbon capture, use, and sequestration (CCUS) costs; and alternative sources for hydrogen production. Nonetheless, for many countries, hydrogen will be an important part of the future energy mix and efforts to encourage and help with regulatory and technology improvements can drive forward this development.
Natural Gas
Natural gas will continue to play a key role as a transition fuel in the clean energy future. Replacing coal with natural gas can halve greenhouse gas emissions, but access to supply, and at a reasonable price, will be an important factor. Given the current high cost of natural gas in many parts of the world, greater supply at lower cost will be needed to encourage that displacement.Gas as a storage and back-up fuel for electricity supply will also continue to be important during the transition period, and joint efforts to reduce methane emissions (as announced at COP26) will be crucial in creating greater public acceptance of natural gas use while ramping up the generation of renewable sources.
Sourcing natural gas and the role of international markets are essential to the smooth functioning and application of natural gas as a transition fuel; the United States and the EU should both continue to reinforce regulatory provisions to encourage the efficient functioning of those markets.
src: click
Now - how is what Habeck is doing not simply lying to people? How is what DW is doing not simply copying lies, without setting them in context?
“The truth”, should it exist, is somewhere is burried in the 14th paragraph in the article, while the fact, that soaring gas prices are enabling LNG production to begin with, is not even mentioned. German Marshal Fund of the United States is stating that for the green transition moderate gas prices are paramount, and Habeck is “increasing energy security” for germany by making “diversification of sources” mandatory?
This only makes sense, if you accuse Gazprom of intentionally increasing gas prices, for political reasons (which no one does openly, btw - otherwise, fact checking would come in), to the point where they’ve lost 41.3% of exports year on year - and from then on it stops making sense, because if you diversify by building out LNG terminals or try to procure large quantities from other sources, you do that with a price expectation of todays price levels of gas. Not lower ones. US is participating in this trend to the fullest extent (Interestingly enough OPEC didn’t flood the market with cheap natural gas this time around, to compensate for “market prices”, with expert opinion mostly stating, that this had occured in large parts because “green transition” as the foremost goal in their most important consumer markets made them bind together with russian energy producers). Markets so far dont care about political intervention in the least, that goes for the US as well (or at least?). At the same time Habeck promotes “higher energy prices” as a way to accelerate the transition towards green energy” publicly, while the people responsible for his actual policies (how could that be missed by now…) outright state, that lower natural gas prices would be needed in the mid term, to enable the energy transition. And if you think “diversifying natural gas procurement” means something other than higher gas prices - think again.
UK Gas Production Could Plunge 75% By 2030
The UK could become much more vulnerable to price shocks and geopolitical events unless new offshore fields are approved and developed—and the UK’s gas production could plummet by 75 percent
src: click
Diversifying natural gas procurement, means higher natural gas prices. Is only possible with higher natural gas prices in place. Is not in the interest of russia (If not for increasing the price of natural gas overall.). And according to Habeck was caused by market mechanisms. (Paragraph 14 in the DW article.) Because what was in the interest of russia, was fulfilling their standing obligations, and doing so within one or two days after the order amounts increased again. (At a higher price, but look at US gasmarkets at the same time at least - when making the statement that diversifying procurement would be the way out of this.)
This time I provided the throughline. I hope everyone is happy with it as is. I just cant stand the lies anymore.
US says Russian attack no longer ‘imminent’
Now who saw that one coming? Anyone?
edit: Bonus - if you want the contradicting information released by a US States Department spokesperson, a few hours earlier:
Must-watch exchange between @APDiploWriter Matt Lee and @StateDeptSpox:
Reporter: “It’s an action that you say they have taken, but you have shown no evidence to confirm that. […] This is like - crisis actors? Really? This is like Alex Jones territory you’re getting into now.”
