Europe accuses US of profiting from war

https://www.politico.eu/article/vladimir-putin-war-europe-ukraine-gas-inflation-reduction-act-ira-joe-biden-rift-west-eu-accuses-us-of-profiting-from-war/

by macleginn • 4 years ago

62 124 4 years ago

politico.eu

Kukumber5• 4 years ago

Glad to see Europe waking up, 20 years too late, but something tells me that they won't learn anything and it's just a "venting moment", we'll see

"The Europeans are discernibly frustrated about the lack of prior information and consultation," said David Kleimann of the Bruegel think tank.

Ukraine-Russia conflict isn't being called a "proxy war" for fun

"The Inflation Reduction Act is very worrying," said Dutch Trade Minister Liesje Schreinemacher. "The potential impact on the European economy is very big."
"The U.S. is following a domestic agenda, which is regrettably protectionist and discriminates against U.S. allies," said Tonino Picula, the European Parliament's lead person on the transatlantic relationship.
“The Inflation Reduction Act has changed everything," one EU diplomat said. "Is Washington still our ally or not?”

US policies will force many EU businesses to either delocalize to the US or to shutdown, as if it was all planned, boosting the US economy, what ever it takes, god save the dollar

factsarelolz4• 4 years ago

US policies will force many EU businesses to either delocalize to the US or to shutdown, as if it was all planned, boosting the US economy, what ever it takes, god save the dollar

Always has been.

There were some tin foil hat types that were saying that the goal of the Ukraine/Russia conflict was 2 fold. 1. To get rid of Putin 2. To make the EU rely on the US instead of Russia.

It appears the second part is working. The more the US escalated the conflict the more power it held over the EU. Some might even say that the bombing of Nord Stream helped this endeavor.

Just for prosperity. The Orange Man was laughed at and ridiculed when bring up reliance on Russian supplies. Didn't age very well.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eKEycjREgPE

coolbreezetft222• 4 years ago

The Ukraine-Russia conflict was started by Putin lol. I guess he could have totally foiled America's plans by...not invading Ukraine

Somehow, none of these conversations and theories about US-Russia proxy war and US "escalating" the conflict NEVER give any agency at all the the people of Ukraine. The US "escalated" by helping them (at their request) fight off a violent and genocidal invader??

The Orange Man was laughed at because he called Putin a "very savvy genius" who was "keeping the peace", pretty straightforward.

mytailorisrich2• 4 years ago

Well, interestingly considering the current world events in the news, as of 2020 the 3 largest gas exporters in the world were Russia, the USA, and Qatar.

There is no doubt that the USA (and Qatar) are having a great time selling gas to Europe this year.

themitigating4• 4 years ago

Putin had a choice on whether to invade Ukraine. He planned this invasion, amassed troops at their border, then initiated the fighting. Even if the US is taking advantage of this what is your claim?

bart_spoon• 4 years ago

So to be clear, Europe has pursued its own protectionist economic policies for decades, neglected their military funding, and pursued energy policy that made them extremely reliant on known bad actor Russia, all while poopoo-ing the US, and now that the chickens are coming home to roost they are blaming the US for it?

whearyou• 4 years ago

Sounds about right

lo_zamoyski4• 4 years ago

The headline should read "Western Europe". A couple of Western European officials don't speak for all Europeans, as much as they might want to or pretend to. Perhaps the Cold War prejudice of drawing the line between Western Europe ("really real" Europe) and Central/Eastern Europe (terra incognita) still persists. But consider Poland[0].

[0] https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-military-superpower-p...

profstasiak• 4 years ago

what is the point of your linked article?

blub2• 4 years ago

But those officials do speak for the two strongest economies in the EU, from which Eastern Europe also depends.

And Poland’s complaining too about the prices of Norwegian gas. Turns out the government forgot to negotiate long-term contracts and they have to pay market prices.

Kukumber5• 4 years ago

France chose to massively invest in nuclear Energy thanks to De Gaulle, he wasn't pro-american

Germany/Poland were all pro-american, so it's wrong to say "and pursued energy policy that made them extremely reliant on known bad actor Russia, all while poopoo-ing the US", do you know how Poland hates Russia?

"neglected their military funding" is also wrong, that was an american wish, the "Demilitarization of Europe" [1]

Europe is in this mess because of the US, and their multiple global trade sanctions which have prevented the EU from multiplying their source of supply and policies that forced the demilitarization of Europe, we also see the continuation of it nowadays with them sending all of their ammunitions to Ukraine

And it's not just with natural gas but also uranium and lithium, US/AUS companies busy in Spain mining their resources for example [2]

The multiple suspicious NGOs against nuclear energy in Europe are also something interesting ;)

[1] http://www.klauslarres.org/articles-1991-2015.html

[2] https://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/articles/entry...

oneoff7862• 4 years ago

Dependence on Russian oil was not the pro America choice, it was the cheapest, easiest, short term gain with a huge long tail risk that’s now popped.

AlbertCory7• 4 years ago

OK, I looked at [1]:

While Gates never outlined what he actually meant by “demilitarization”, the U.S. Department of Defense and most analysts use the phrase when referring to the European countries’ tendency to reduce the size of their armies, navies and air force personnel and delay updating their military hardware. However, European “demilitarization” also includes the cultural reorientation of most EU nations away from militarization and an overly international activism. Thus European “demilitarization” is also a matter of attitude rather than merely a question of expenditure on military forces and hardware.

There's some academic smoke-blowing for you. But let's make it simple: 2% of GDP to be spent on defense. They've agreed to do it, but until Ukraine they just refused. Was there some help from the US that they were missing?

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/07/20/how-european-c...

Oh look, here's Germany coming in at 1%:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1293562/expenditure-on-m...

quyleanh• 4 years ago

It was win-win situation, even the protectionist policies. When it changes and one side has to take the lose, they cannot silent anymore.

Btw, it's not simple like the way you talk "bad actor Russia". They all come with bad and good things, depends on the perspective. And they all have their own benefits and intends.

Politics is very complicated, isn't it?

oneoff7862• 4 years ago

Genocidal Russia should suffice for clarity

DoingIsLearning• 4 years ago

Europe has pursued its own protectionist economic policies for decades, neglected their military funding, and pursued energy policy that made them extremely reliant on known bad actor Russia

Technically from the EU27 only Germany, Austria, Italy, Czechia, Slovakia, and Bulgaria are the ones actually dependent on Russian Gas (6 out of 27 nations). It's important to not generalize.

Also most of the EU's protectionism is around making sure we have a Farming sector for food security and Food standards for Food Safety. I don't have any issue with being 'protected' from clorinated chicken.

On military spending all EU countries spend at least half of the target 2% of GDP from Nato, only Luxembourg is below that.

In comparison the US spends about 7% of GDP but let's not be naive that this is very much catalyzed by Military Industrial complex lobbying rather than some deep desire of preserving world order.

AlbertCory7• 4 years ago

So you're waving "at least half" as some kind of virtual compliance?

How does this sound: "Of our 12 year-olds tested, at least half are reading at grade level!"

One percent of GDP is a lot.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1293562/expenditure-on-m...

TMWNN• 4 years ago

On military spending all EU countries spend at least half of the target 2% of GDP from Nato, only Luxembourg is below that.

I think this wins the Copium Award for the month.

_nalply2• 4 years ago

Technically from the EU27 only Germany, Austria, Italy, Czechia, Slovakia, and Bulgaria are the ones actually dependent on Russian Gas (6 out of 27 nations). It's important to not generalize.

And Switzerland. Switzerland is not a member of the EU but is Europe, and its economy (and culture) is strongly interconnected with the EU.

jrpost• 4 years ago

The U.S. wanted a huge piece of the oil action in Russia in 2003 and got rejected:

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/BUSINESS/10/03/russia.yukos/

It seems to me that the U.S. wanted to be "extremely reliant on known bad actor Russia". Is Nord Stream perhaps sour grapes for the U.S.?

gilbetron• 4 years ago

The US wanted to get cheap Russian oil, but that wouldn't have made them reliant on Russia, as the US has plenty of their own. It was simple economics.

europeanguy3• 4 years ago

I'm European, and never in my life have I been so embarrassed of Europe.

rendall4• 4 years ago

Speaking as an American, I assure you, don't be embarrassed about anything. This article is terrible, not Europe. Its author should be embarrassed.

jemmyw4• 4 years ago

Europe actually has a significant defense capability. More trained soldiers than the US or Russia. Arms r&d, lots of aircraft, ship building etc. It doesn't spend as much as the US and only a couple of European countries have projection, namely France and the UK, and not that much at that. But the idea that Europe as a whole would be unable to defend itself against Russia's conventional military is pretty much just hawkish propaganda.

thefz• 4 years ago

That's very generalistic.

Europe has historically been relying on North Africa for gas since a long time.

m0002• 4 years ago

I was to watch a movie tonight, but instead I'm making popcorn and staying on HN.

Veen2• 4 years ago

The U.S. acts in its own best interests, as do all countries. If they happen to coincide with UK and EU interests, then great. If not, tough luck. The surprising thing is that politicians on this side of the Atlantic are naive enough to believe otherwise.

constantcrying4• 4 years ago

The U.S. acts in its own best interests, as do all countries.

Please inform me how Germany is acting in its best interest in terms of its energy policy.

Veen2• 4 years ago

That's a symptom of the naiveté. We have a generation of politicians who have utterly failed to plan for local energy resources because they assumed they could rely on external sources and so it was in their economic interests to invest elsewhere. Perhaps I should have said 'all countries act in what their elites believe is their best interest'.

AlbertCory7• 4 years ago

How about becoming dependent on known bad actor Russia for gas, and having an ex-Chancellor on the board of Rozneft?

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/05/20/ex-german-chancell...

kulahan3• 4 years ago

"best interest" doesn't inherently mean "decision with no difficulties whatsoever". Moving away from Russian energy, even if it's painful in the interim, is in Germany's best interests.

boringg• 4 years ago

Its politicians politicking. They know, they are just using it to their own advantage either about to sell new policies are trying to soften a US stance.

lm28469• 4 years ago

The U.S. acts in its own best interests, as do all countries.

With allies like that...

Nothing new though: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/02/global-battle-...

miguelazo4• 4 years ago

Not naïve. Just too weak and compromised to do anything about it. And they will eventually pay a price when their populations are fed up. Given the history of how those moments have played out before, not a great outlook.

creato• 4 years ago

Shipping gas without a pipeline is expensive and there is limited capacity to do so on both ends. What is Europe expecting? Massive subsidies from the US on its gas exports?

factsarelolz4• 4 years ago

There were some tin foil hat types that were saying that the goal of the Ukraine/Russia conflict was 2 fold. 1. To get rid of Putin 2. To make the EU rely on the US instead of Russia. It appears the second part is working. The more the US escalated the conflict the more power it held over the EU. Some might even say that the bombing of Nord Stream helped this endeavor. Just for prosperity. The Orange Man was laughed at and ridiculed when bring up reliance on Russian supplies. Didn't age very well.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eKEycjREgPE

Tade02• 4 years ago

The Orange Man was a little too obvious in his pursuit of selling this 4x as expensive gas - that's why he was ridiculed.

ren_engineer• 4 years ago

Trump wanted an actual pipeline which would have made the natural gas far cheaper for Europe and warned that Russia couldn't be trusted. He also told NATO countries to hit their 2% GDP defense spending goals so that they could defend against Russia. Everybody laughed and said Russia had changed and could be trusted completely

themitigating4• 4 years ago

Putin invaded Ukraine to get rid of himself?

klamp• 4 years ago

Of course. The U.S. has always wanted to dominate energy sales to Europe. The conflict is very much about dominance in the Caspian Sea:

https://www.heritage.org/europe/report/time-us-strategy-the-...

"The importance that Russia places on the Caspian can also help explain, at least in part, its determination to occupy Crimea and fully control the Sea of Azov. One of the two canals connecting the Caspian to the outside world is the Volga–Don Canal, which links the Caspian Sea with the Sea of Azov. In the past year Russia has been using the Volga–Don Canal more often to move warships between the Caspian Sea and the Sea of Azov,41"

Both the U.S. and Russia want influence in a region, so a proxy war ensues.

kome• 4 years ago

duh, of course the war in Ukraine is such a good business for the US: both its energy industry and its defense industrial complex.

to me, it is OK that the US acts following its own best interests; but it's much more problematic that EU countries acts against their own interests.

But, long term, that's ok: long term this hardship will make EU economies more independent, we are reducing the use fossil fuels so incredibility fast, making our houses more isolated from heat and cold. So perhaps we might still winning the long game.

Tade02• 4 years ago

Looking at this inflation-adjusted chart:

https://www.macrotrends.net/2478/natural-gas-prices-historic...

Gas isn't actually expensive now, it's just that between now and 2015 it was unusually cheap. We shouldn't have gotten this used to this obviously temporary situation.

lnsru• 4 years ago

What Europe did is plain stupid. Germany cut the gas supply and is trying to catch up. Gas and electricity prices are skyrocketing. Like from 300€ a month to 1000€ a month for an older house. It would be clever to buy bad Russian gas for one more year and use that saved money for installing renewables. Whole world is benefiting selling energy resources for sick prices. It’s not that US is somehow profiting. It’s clear, that Europe simply lost by playing not wise.

A4ET8a8uTh0• 4 years ago

Hmm, yes, if you look at it through a prism of EU as a united front, which, well, it is not. EU is a lot of things, but it has been under tremendous pressure to withstand various growing pains. Remember that it started as an economic union that slowly started to evolve into something resembling region umbrella.

Now, once you look at the course of events through the prism of what is benefiting Germany, it is clear that those were set to benefit Germany. It just so happened, that political situation around the globe took a turn ( I am not certain what was the real watershed moment here, but Poland in particular was talking about [Russia and Germany working together in this fasion undermining EU energy policy] way before, say, Trump ; not that Obama was not aware of it either, but he was content considering Russia a 'regional power' ).

Everything I just said is public source.

Europe can still make it work, but it will actually take a real threat for it coalesce and I am surprised that did not happen yet. I am starting to wonder if this is exactly how WW2 started. People not understanding what is going on and betting that it will just dissipate on its own.

BillyTheKing• 4 years ago

Germany did not cut its gas-supply - Russia cut the gas-supply to Germany. Europe did not sanction Russian gas (they sanctioned Russian oil among other things). So this was not really German policy, it's Russian policy to cut gas-supplies to Europe.

locallost• 4 years ago

There's nothing wrong with it per se, but fact of the matter is, the US has profited from the current situation. So the question becomes at what point the other side realizes it's a bad marriage and wants out. It's as simple as that. And there's nothing wrong with that either. I don't think it was a coincidence that Olaf Scholz went on a visit to China recently.

Bottom line, being an ally means nothing other than mutual support. If the West European allies are not that important then the US should plow ahead, but the consequence will be those countries will look elsewhere for partners.

parkingrift• 4 years ago

If the West European allies are not that important then the US should plow ahead, but the consequence will be those countries will look elsewhere for partners.

This comment brought to you by the year 2008. Europe did look elsewhere for partners, and cozied up with Russia.

I can’t wait to see how Europeans shoot themselves in the foot this time.

photochemsyn• 4 years ago

"As they attempt to reduce their reliance on Russian energy, EU countries are turning to gas from the U.S. instead — but the price Europeans pay is almost four times as high as the same fuel costs in America."

Well, that was the plan, really. In late 2021 the industry-business press had more than a few articles bemoaning the US natural gas supply glut, and that was a a theme Russia's energy sector complained about as well, see this from 2020:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gazprom-europe-idUKKBN26X...

Sure Covid had something to do with it, but LNG is not jet fuel. Clearly, there was a battle shaping up over who was going to get to 'light Europe', and that was tied into finances and balance-of-payment concerns - i.e. the USA doesn't care if Gulf Arab states sell gas and oil to Europe, because those are US client states who recycle sales money back into the US banking system. Russia doesn't do that, so it's a competitor, not a collaborator.

Europe could have acted differently - it could have built out renewables to a greater extent starting two decades ago (technologically, that was feasible), or it could have rejected the oil-finance sanctions on Russia over the Ukraine war - so they did make their own bed.

What, were they relying on the beneficial warm-heartedness of Wall Street? Did they expect the fossil fuel executives and finance oligarchs to decline a giant surge in profits so poor Europeans wouldn't have to pay more to heat their homes? Greedy sociopaths are not known for such benevolent behavior, even if they pay millions to PR experts in an attempt to convince the public of their altruistic spirits.

rendall4• 4 years ago

I suspect that Politico exaggerates the tensions.

nosianu• 4 years ago

I think the headline is a misrepresentation. Even in the article they quickly switch to a completely different topic, increasing protectionist subsidies. Those are the actual issue. The article mixes two different things and generates a headline leaning on the much less important one from this unfortunate mix as far as I can tell.

The other part of the article is what's making headlines here: The protectionist subsidies that the US plans to set up and increase. That is the key.

Example: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-05/eu-warns-... - but also subsidies for various industries, e.g. chip makers, or batteries: https://www.ft.com/content/59a8d135-3477-4d0a-8d12-20c7ef94b...

The Ukraine and energy part does not create any significant amount of headlines here, if any. It's been mentioned but as an aside and without much emotion or blame, usually always followed by the comment section siding with UK and America for actually helping Ukraine.

Gas prices are part of the industry issues but I have yet to see a single article, except the one linked here, that would blame the US for those price increases. Also, our recent headlines have all been "German economy doing much better than expected", "gas reserves full", "LNG tankers line up in front of Europe", replacing a lot of previous more alarmist headlines.

I am unaware of any significant opinions against US profits from this war, it's taken as incidental. Russia started the war and Russia is acting FAR outside of an acceptable range with their extreme brutality. None of that is the US's fault - and arming Ukraine is mostly seen as good and justified, with no regard to any profits US might make accept from some few comments, usually heavily downvoted in the majority of our German mass media websites.

My perspective comes from following at the very least Die zeit and Der Spiegel, and occasionally Die Welt and FAZ, all of this year, at least noticing most headlines if they are Ukraine related. I think that's most of the big German sites, only "Bild" missing as a major player.

rendall4• 4 years ago

I pretty much agree with everything you say here. This aligns with my understanding.

sergiosgc4• 4 years ago

The article is baseless and at odds with what I see as publicly stated political opinion and, more importantly, public (EU population) opinion. The article is baseless because it echoes unnamed sources. "Top EU officials", but not one name underwrites the citations about bickering, with the notable exception about gas price negotiation discourse, which is natural and expected.

Now, let's assume the article is true: Europe is suffering because of the Russia-Ukraine war, and top officials resent US profiteering. The solution is obvious: arm Ukraine. The stronger Ukraine is, the quicker this war ends. The whole narrative around USA creating this war, and USA prolonging this war makes no sense. Russia created this war, and the EU can end the war this winter: just provide as many weapons as USA does.

Note: I'm European and living in Europe.

gitanovic5• 4 years ago

Not saying that it should be done, let me state it before. But the obvious solution to the current crisis would be actually to stop arming Ukraine... It might just cause a larger more serious crisis later though

Also european living in Europe

Invictus02• 4 years ago

It's like saying the solution to climate change is to turn on the air conditioning. Why even say something so stupid.

kevin_thibedeau• 4 years ago

You're also volunteering to live in Ukraine for the next decade of reconstruction?

sergiosgc4• 4 years ago

That is an option that regularly pops up but, as you say, it will cause a more serious crisis later on. Russia is very clearly an expansionist state. If allowed to expand to Ukraine, it will expand further. The Baltic states would be next on the slate, and on a two-decade horizon consolidation over the Black Sea (Moldova, Romania, Bulgaria). Much much better to avoid that timeline altogether and stop Russia now.

mytailorisrich2• 4 years ago

Well, so far it's rather obvious that the war in Ukraine has been rather bad for Europe and rather good for the US.

In many ways, it's been bad for Europe because of Europe's own decisions and policies over the past years and decades, and it's been good for the US for the same reasons. Additionally it's always 'better' to be far away than next door to an active war. Of course the US have used the situation to further their interests, as any country would.

I don't see anything baseless or at odds with public opinion. I think any European can see that this is the case. The article does not claim or imply that the US created the war, by the way.

The key is that Europe should stop whining or see the US as a 'friend' here to subsidise them, and start looking after itself by itself.

sergiosgc4• 4 years ago

I don't see anything baseless or at odds with public opinion.

"Nine months after invading Ukraine, Vladimir Putin is beginning to fracture the West."

This is baseless and at odds with public opinion. It is also the lede of the article.

hnbad4• 4 years ago

It's almost like war in Europe is always bad for Europe and good for the US. The US owes its status as a superpower primarily to most of Europe wearing itself out in the two world wars. This time the damage of the war is mostly economic because it's largely a war by proxy, but by geography alone Europe is naturally more impacted than the US.

I think it's baseless to say to the US "you did this, so pay up" but it seems that the main accusation is "you're our ally, so stop trying to profit from this to our detriment". The US has always been more of an abusive spouse than an "ally" by virtue of being powerful enough to bully everyone else around with implied threats alone. You can argue this is just politics but then we Europeans should stop allowing ourselves to be deluded about any pretense of being in the same boat just because we're on the same side in a given conflict or on a given issue. You say Europe should start "looking after itself by itself" and stop seeing the US as a "friend" but this is exactly how the US has been portrayed in Europe for over a century and this hardly went against the US's interests.

FWIW this is another manifestation of the same problem I see within the EU. The EU is largely a trade organization and its politics are primarily shaped by the business interests of its member nations. But because that sounds boring and evil, we've come up with glorifying narratives about a shared European identity and common history and culture and whatnot and always bring up "European values" whenever we feel like it. But while e.g. Germany and France may have a shared history and culture, this doesn't manifest throughout all regions of both countries the same way (e.g. the Rhineland or Alsace naturally link both countries due to their histories but the same isn't true for Brittany or Schleswig-Holstein), and it certainly doesn't transfer to relationships between e.g. Portugal and Bulgaria.

I think Brexit should have been the wake-up call that ultimately we're all isolated countries and any appeal to "friendship" or "allyship" is primarily performative, not material. The EU is fine to the extent that it serves "our" (i.e. whatever country we live in) economic interests but it's not a "shared heritage" or even a precursor to a federal body like the US federal government (which evolved very differently and carries its own undesirable flaws). Given the nature of the EU it would make sense to formalize a similar body to the NATO as an EU member alliance (alongside the many other mostly overlapping organizations the EU consists of) and re-evaluate our place in NATO from then on, but again that would require moving away from the kind of talk where this is portrayed as a "United State of Europe" military and rather a "European Treaty Organization".

orbifold2• 4 years ago

We would have done Ukraine a huge favor if we hadn’t involved ourselves in their internal politics at all. No funding of NGOs, no attempts to integrate them in EU or NATO. It is too late now, but the way that this had become a literal cottage industry of Ukraine think tanks even before this year, all the way back to the “Orange revolution”, did never correspond to the enthusiasm the average European have for Ukraine.

jemmyw4• 4 years ago

Ukraine wanted to join the EU for quite a long time. There's a quote from Putin from years ago saying it's their choice if they do, guess he changed his mind.

People in eastern Europe have been generally keen to join the EU. It's not meddling if a country wants to join your club, I mean are you suggesting the EU just ignores the request?

zranf• 4 years ago

I'm European as well and the article is not far off. On the Internet the U.S. opinion is always amplified. Perhaps 50% of the population accepts it, but not more.

The opinion has been there for a long time (e.g., https://www.ft.com/content/cd7270a6-f72b-4b40-8195-1a796f748...).

It seems to me that Europe is doing quite well in providing arms:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foreign_aid_to_Ukraine...

I wish that the U.S. and the U.K. would now take the millions of refugees from Poland and Germany in order to demonstrate their unwavering solidarity. Refugees cost money, as opposed to the MIC getting rich.

lo_zamoyski4• 4 years ago

Indeed. I can't comment on gas prices (it would be immoral to raise prices artificially to exploit those in need, if that were the case), but where weapons are concerned, all things remaining the same, it is cheaper for everyone to give Ukraine weapons for free than having NATO enter the war, which would, by all reasonable accounts, be catastrophic. The notion that US corporations are profiting from selling weapons is so preposterously boneheaded. OBVIOUSLY, if there's a war, governments will buy weapons from defense companies, and therefore OBVIOUSLY, these corporations will make profits. The US didn't start this war, much less to profit from it, even if it shares in the responsibility of giving Russia all sorts of incentives to do so.

What I think is that this "moralizing" reflects a general fear of Western Europe's plummeting position in Europe and the loss of American favor. Their true colors and interests (including those involving Russia) have been exposed, and they don't like the geopolitical shift of power eastward toward the center (one which will, as it had historically for centuries, act to stabilize Europe). The war is merely hastening their decline, so they're grasping at straws and whining.

kloper• 4 years ago

Loss of American favor? Since the cold war Eastern European immigrants have had an outsized influence on U.S. foreign policy.

Th U.S. has been playing off the Eastern European countries against the Western since the fall of the Soviet Union.

This is not exactly new. If Eastern European countries are so unhappy, perhaps France/Germany/Austria/Italy should form a new EU. We are tired of paying while being bashed for it.

vinyl7• 4 years ago

it is cheaper for everyone to give Ukraine weapons for free than having NATO enter the war, which would, by all reasonable accounts, be catastrophic. The notion that US corporations are profiting from selling weapons is so preposterously boneheaded.

I don't think the US as a country is profiting. Yes, the defense companies are...but at the same time...how many people in Congress or in decision making positions are shareholders of defense companies? And what about the defense company's lobbying efforts and campaign contributions?

jemmyw4• 4 years ago

I'm not quite sure how catastrophic it would have been for NATO to enter the war. Catastrophic for Russia. Not catastrophic for civilians in Ukraine who were mass murdered.

washadjeffmad• 4 years ago

So, a US-Russian proxy war over control of Caspian Sea trade routes decimates Ukraine, and Europe is in collective agreement on who it would rather (not) have to do business with.

In light of more than €52B in aid being supplied to Ukraine by the US this FY, do you still stand by your assessment that increasing armament supply will lead to a swifter and less costly resolution?

miguelazo4• 4 years ago

The article is baseless and at odds with what I see as publicly stated political opinion and, more importantly, public (EU population) opinion.

Interesting bubble you must live in. Most Europeans I know are livid with the US proxy war and there have been massive demonstrations in the streets in several countries.

blibble• 4 years ago

ah yes, it's the US fault the corrupt German politicians made Germany entirely dependent on Russian gas

even Trump understood this was a stupid idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu57D9YcIk0

samtho• 4 years ago

You can’t light yourself on fire just to keep others warm. Additionally, there is a reason why during the flight safety brief they ask that you put your own mask on before helping others. If you are incapacitated, you cannot provide any meaningful support sans perhaps your body being eaten or actually lit on fire, but that’s getting kind of dark.

Not saying that everything what the US is doing is great for everyone but it’s important to acknowledge that there are economic problems latent and otherwise, that the US must address locally in order to even engage in external affairs. We are using monetary, legislative, and executive tools to do this because those are the levers we can pull. It is not going to be “optimal” but is probably the best we got right now.

I don’t think [western] Europe is taking the care it needs for itself, but this difference in opinion can be attributed to differences in culture, e.g. Americans tends to be more individually-minded and European societies tend to focus on the collective.

Americans do, by and large, support efforts to support Ukraine and the Europe, even some of the most conservative people I know, ones who vehemently disagree with European governance/values, still very strongly support the cause of assisting our friends across the pond. It sucks that we’re having to deal with artificially induced inflation and grifters profiting off of this, but refinement of policy to prevent that takes years that Ukraine and the EU do not have to wait.

In my mind, people’s lives, freedoms, and their country they love are at stake and Americans who otherwise would not have given Ukraine a second thought before have found a deep respect and kinship for their resolve, determination, military ability, and bravery being faced with what was (at least at one time) one of the most powerful military forces in the world. Money can be replaced, refunded, sent as relief, but lives cannot.

Invictus02• 4 years ago

Absolutely terrible reporting.

"The Inflation Reduction Act is very worrying," said Dutch Trade Minister Liesje Schreinemacher. "The potential impact on the European economy is very big."

Which parts specifically?

As they attempt to reduce their reliance on Russian energy, EU countries are turning to gas from the U.S. instead — but the price Europeans pay is almost four times as high as the same fuel costs in America.

Ok...? The US supplies less than 25% of the EU's energy, it's not America's fault that the EU made shitty energy policy decisions. This sentence makes it sound like America's fault.

Then there’s the likely surge in orders for American-made military kit as European armies run short after sending weapons to Ukraine.

A 'surge'? EU countries have been far short of their commitment to spend 2% of GDP on their military for decades. So now they're complaining about needing to replace whatever aging junk they offloaded to Ukraine instead of freeloading off of Article 5.

miguelazo4• 4 years ago

Which parts specifically?

One could start with the exclusion of electric vehicles and batteries that aren’t produced in the US from the tax credit. Effective immediately as of mid-August. Really great for VW, don’t you think?

But I imagine there are many other examples.

hackandthink• 4 years ago

Hauke Ritz and Ulrike Guérot have a cinemascope version of this accusation. All an evil plot of the USA.

"From American sources, they deduce that the Russian-Ukrainian war is a long-prepared American proxy war."

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endspiel_Europa

kodyo• 4 years ago

What’s the point of having a unipolar corporatist oligarchy and staging regional border disputes if you can’t profit from it?

rado• 4 years ago

What a ridiculous accusation. They would never do such things.

Normille• 4 years ago

  >The fact is, if you look at it soberly, the country that is most profiting from this war is the U.S. because they are selling more gas and at higher prices, and because they are selling more weapons,” one senior official told POLITICO.

Incredible. It's almost like some people in the EU have belatedly woken up and begun to question the wisdom of destroyng the economies of an entire continent, to benefit the US.

Normille. Seven months ago[0]...

  >The US will be rubbing its hands with glee. They must have thought all their Christmases had come at once, when Russia invaded Ukraine

  * Russia ostracised by Europe

  * More US arms sales to Europe

  * More US gas sales to Europe

  * More European acolytes to join their US-led military bloc

  The only difficult part must be keeping a straight face while pretending to be outraged by it all.

Well, here's a second chance for you to downvote, if you missed out last time.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31159748#31160290

hereme888• 4 years ago

I believe no other country is individually spending tens of billions of dollars helping Ukraine. So if the US found a way to make a profit to recover some of the costs of preventing the expanse of communism and brutal killing of innocent people, while weakening a nation threatening the world with nuclear war, kudos to them.

Ptchd• 4 years ago

I guess Europe doesn't understand the purpose of war...

t0bia_s• 4 years ago

Rising price of gas is not because of Putin's invasion. I've got increased bill by 600% in 11/2021, four month before invasion. Politics who blames war for rising prices clearly lies, period.

Ideologies like green deal and drastic lockdowns shake prices.

Europe accuses US of profiting from war

Related Stories