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.
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
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?
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.
Would it though? Sure, gas/oil production would slowly have reduced but so would costs associated with that activity (health, environment, etc.).
Please share where I wrote this. I look forward to finding the pond from where this red herring sprung.
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.
What interpretation do you suggest given your talk about “war objectives regardless of POTUS”, “qui bono” and “otherwise unsellable LNG”?
That industry has always been a money pit for the US government.
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