The Trump White House says Putin would not dare to attack if America has commercial skin in the game
Holy hell. That is the security that Ukrainians are supposed to get?
this post was submitted on 28 Mar 2025
107 points (99.1% liked)
Europe
5042 readers
2459 users here now
News and information from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in !yurop@lemm.ee. (They're cool, you should subscribe there too!)
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
(This list may get expanded when necessary.)
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the mods: @federalreverse@feddit.org, @poVoq@slrpnk.net, or @anzo@programming.dev.
founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
Good thing Trump can't force Europe to stop expanding renewables and switch back to Russia's swill.
Right-wing parties all around the EU are already trying to "fix" that.
And they are some of the most popular ones ready to win elections basically everywhere.
That popularity is dropping now that voters are seeing the fruits of those ideas blossoming in America.
That was always one of the objectives of this war, regardless of who is the POTUs. Stifle Europe's energy transition and industrial output before it becomes independent from tyrants selling hydrocarbons.
If you do a "qui bono" someone shows up as the main supplier of LNG that would otherwise be near unsellable due to fracking being prohibitively expensive.
So you're saying Biden helped start the war against Ukraine!?
No, I'm saying it could have been Joe Schmoe as president and the war would have still happened.
Sure, Russia started the war. So of course, it would have happened regardless.
Also true: US LNG suddenly became a lot more popular. However, Biden is also the president that passed the IRA, helping the US start down the (now-abandoned) path of becoming less dependent on fossil fuel.
So what's your point about the motivation of the US under Biden?
My point is De Gaulle was right and the US are not reliable, regardless of who is president.
The RIA was another protectionist attack on strategic partners under the guise of environmentalism and national security. In fact, without the war in Ukraine, the RIA would have failed spectacularly.
AUKUS should have been the wake up call it doesn't matter who is president, unless it's Bernie. Bernie is the last shred of civilisation stateside.
You still haven't responded to the original question: In what way did Biden's alleged goal of keeping Europe hooked on fossil fuels influence Russian war plans?
The RIA was another protectionist attack on strategic partners
I guess you can view the IRA that way. I find that disingenuous, because the main rival in renewable technology is China who control solar and battery production.
In addition, the EU failing to match the IRA is entirely the EU's fault. This could have been the race toward a positive (if still too materialistic) future. Instead, gonservatives e.g. in my region of Germany watched as the final pieces of credible solar industry left the EU. "Good job, team! We saved 10k coal jobs for another 3 years!" It's not Biden's fault that EU gonservatives have been trying to turn us into a bunch of h*cking babana republics.
In fact, without the war in Ukraine, the RIA would have failed spectacularly.
Would it though? Sure, gas/oil production would slowly have reduced but so would costs associated with that activity (health, environment, etc.).
You still haven't responded to the original question: In what way did Biden's alleged goal of keeping Europe hooked on fossil fuels influence Russian war plans?
Please share where I wrote this. I look forward to finding the pond from where this red herring sprung.
Would it though?
The fracking industry was gearing towards collapse
The EU didn't match the IRA because it flies in the face of WTO rules. Some peoples do try to abandon the "rules for thee and not for me", regardless of how shitty our politicians have become.
Please share where I wrote this. I look forward to finding the pond from where this red herring sprung.
What interpretation do you suggest given your talk about "war objectives regardless of POTUS", "qui bono" and "otherwise unsellable LNG"?
That was always one of the objectives of this war, regardless of who is the POTUs. Stifle Europe's energy transition and industrial output before it becomes independent from tyrants selling hydrocarbons.
If you do a "qui bono" someone shows up as the main supplier of LNG that would otherwise be near unsellable due to fracking being prohibitively expensive.
The fracking industry was gearing towards collapse
That industry has always been a money pit for the US government.
The EU didn't match the IRA because it flies in the face of WTO rules.
Not sure if you're serious given China's massive subsidies for batteries, wind, and solar tech which was not sanctioned effectively and then US Investment in similar technologies, also not sanctioned. Barely anyone would have batted an eye. The reason why we didn't even have an attempt at doing anything is gonservative ideology. "Oh, vee must to not influence industry, ze market ohlveys noes best. Vee must to not pick vinners in ze market, vee must stay teknolojee ohpen. Plees uncle Vlad open ze gas tap again, our industries is in vizzdrawel!" The obvious conundrum being that gonservatives are extremely happy about picking winners, as long as it's some kind of super-wasteful, ideally fossil industry
Upvote because can't tell if last paragraph is joking or actual dutch, it's impossible to distinguish dutch from a joke language.
As for the rest, the interference of Bojo and Biden to continue the war is well known and documented. Both the US and Russia wanted to stop the EU transition to renewables and more energy independence. That's what Qui bono means. You don't need to invade a country to contribute to the start or escalation of a war.
As for the rest, the interference of Bojo and Biden to continue the war is well known and documented.
I finally read the linked post... So BoJo went and BoJo discouraged Zelensky from signing a peace agreement, alright. But apparently the draft peace agreement made insane concessions to Russia: Not only would Russia likely have kept Crimea, Donezk and Luhansk, Ukraine would have had to limit the size of its army, stay neutral, and stay out of Nato and similar organizations. Russia would even have a veto on any action taken by the five security guarantor nations named in the peace accord.
Signing that thing would have been bonkers. And it would likely have ended in a repeat of actions post-Minsk agreements anyhow.
Both the US and Russia wanted to stop the EU transition to renewables and more energy independence
For Biden's US, I'd still say [citation needed] here. Biden certainly jumped at the chance to sell LNG, and make some short-term profit. However, both him and Obama before him were trying to build a legacy. For Obama, it was the ACA and withdrawing troops from Iraq/Afghanistan (RIP). Biden's big project was the IRA, transitioning a fossil superpower, creating well-paid domestic MINT and blue-collar jobs.
Upvote because can't tell if last paragraph is joking or actual dutch, it's impossible to distinguish dutch from a joke language.
I was trying to go for a German accent. (Dutch is at least a little cute, too.)
Critically, Ukraine could still be part of the EU and be covered by the collective EU defense agreement. The concessions were object of negotiations. Negotiations don't kill people.
This war is AUKUS all over again, the yanks and Barries step in to disrupt any kind of peaceful agreement and reinforce enmity and conflict. The initial deal with France was meant to patrol the AU territorial waters, nuclear submarine capabilities is meant to be a provocation to China. Imagine China or Russia equipping Cuba with nuclear capabilities... Oh wait.
While there would have been additional talks, from these earlier demands for concessions, I think it's clear that Ukraine would have gotten a shit deal. A deal guaranteeing at best a fragile peace of mind. I have no doubt that whatever the contract would have said about EU membership, any such campaign from the Ukrainian side would have been the target of massive propaganda campaigns.
Otoh, Russia, the attacking(!) country, would not have had to limit the size of its army or give up nuclear weapons or give up territory. The only way Putin could have read such a deal is as an encouragement to go attack some more countries and snag some territory.
In addition, during his entire political career, Putin has been a scheming, power-hungry, vile person. He's someone who has proven incapable of running a country peacefully and largely incapable of creating a modern state or prosperity. Someone who betrayed Ukraine post-2014. Ffs, the man came into power by false-flag bombing apartments and using the fallout for political gain.
Insisting US & UK were trying to keep the war going, just so they coild sell more fossil fuels is imnsho complete nonsense.
We can agree to disagree. We both agree Putin is a vile bastard. I think Bojo and any US candidate allowed to win a presidency are equally vile. You disagree on that point. It's ok if we agree to disagree.
What matters is now there's no turning back, the US is a hostile power as is Russia and Europe is finally, after years of exploitation, waking up to that fact.
I think Bojo and any US candidate allowed to win a presidency are equally vile. You disagree on that point. It's ok if we agree to disagree.
If the draft peace accord from 2022 was shite (and, from all I know, it was), massively disadvantaging Ukraine and resulting in a brittle peace at best, it becomes irrelevant to this discussion how either of us feel about Boris or Biden. The only question is whether there was serious offer from Putin. Or whether the war has dragged on, precisely because there was no serious offer.
either we stand together and oppose them or be forced to kneel before men like trump.
Leave it to a gasbag like Trump to