Nord Stream 2 Sanctions

The US has introduced sanctions on companies involved in the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project which brings gas from Russia directly into Germany via the Baltic Sea. It's no accident the sanctions were passed as part of the large defense (military) bill passed by the US Congress.

Largely symbolic (given that the project is nearly finished) the sanctions are an expression of displeasure on the part of the US Establishment with the core nations of the EU and the move by the US has proven to be a source of great irritation on both sides of the Atlantic. The Americans are mad that the Europeans are relying on Moscow for gas and as a consequence have expressed little enthusiasm for purchasing American liquefied natural gas (LNG). Likewise the Europeans are angry that the United States is attempting to micro-manage their economies and political decisions... it's reminiscent of the Cold War era.*

Again, the sanctions are symbolic as the pipeline is effectively finished. The sanctions are not going to stop the project from being implemented and coming on-line. However the sanctions are punitive and they're meant to send a signal. Within Europe the US is consolidating an inner circle based on Rumsfeld's New Europe, the nations which are not rivals to the US but rather are subservient to it.

Again, the US has always been ambivalent with regard to the EU. For many years it was viewed as a rival, a challenge to US hegemony and unipolarity. This was especially true in light of the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 and the resulting Euro currency which hit the markets in 1999. However, the momentum or force behind US opposition began to seriously shift between the years 2008-2014. The economic collapse, the rise of new technologies, the shift in the never-ending war scenario from the terrorism narrative to Great Powers Conflict (or Cold War 2.0), the next round of Middle Eastern Wars centred on Libya, Syria, ISIS and North Africa (ostensibly War on Terror 2.0, which has really turned into Cold War 2.0), the economic shifts surrounding fuel and the continued rise of China and the challenges it presents to the US regarding trade and currency have all played a significant role in shaping US policy. Finally, beginning in 2008, Russia began to earnestly and openly resist NATO advancement. This began in Georgia and then in Ukraine in 2010 when Yanukovych was returned to power, defeating the Yushchenko-Tymoshenko pro-Western bloc resulting in Tymoshenko's imprisonment. When the West staged the Euromaidan coup in 2014 and ousted Yanukovych, Russia responded by seizing the Crimea and backing the rebel movements in the pro-Russian Donbass.

In light of these developments US policy shifted toward the EU. Never overtly hostile, Washington nevertheless abandoned the 'rival' posture and began to embrace a 'strong EU' policy with a hope of bolstering NATO and bringing the Russian crisis (for that's how it has been viewed) to a head. The lost decade of 2001-2010 was a period in which Western-Atlantic (EU and NATO) consolidation of the defunct Warsaw Pact nations was sidetracked and by the end of the decade, US power was fragmented and there was a serious determination present in Moscow to resist the encroachments of the US-led Atlantic power bloc... the US Empire.

But then came 2016, a disaster for Atlanticism (one of the core structures of the empire), perhaps the greatest disaster since de Gaulle pulled France out of the NATO command structure in 1966. The United Kingdom voted to leave the EU, a move that would have been embraced at one time by Washington but for it to happen in 2016 was disastrous. And then Donald Trump was elected.

Despite the abundant efforts of the US dominated Atlantic Establishment, Brexit has succeeded and the fallout from this event is still unknown. Aside from questions regarding Northern Ireland, Scotland and the UK in general, there are broader implications for NATO and the Anglo-American economy.

It became necessary to move against Trump and yet this has proven difficult and there is a great deal of discord, dissent and factionalism within the circles of American power. The Atlantic relationship is fragmenting and this began in earnest during the GW Bush era. Brute unilateralism that might have worked before 1989 is not working now. Germany and France while they have their differences are resisting US attempts at control.

Sanctions and tariffs are aggravating the global economy and Trump is unwittingly opening doors to China within Europe. The US is seeking allies to counter the dominance of Berlin and Paris. Of the V4 bloc, Poland is the most zealously attached to the US on this issue and is receptive to American liquefied natural gas (LNG). The Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary have indicated they will stand with Washington but in truth are hedging a bit. The Baltic States are with Washington as are the Balkan nations of Greece, Romania and Bulgaria.  

But the big players in the EU – Germany and France and even second tier economies like Italy and Spain are not on board with the US plan and resent US intrusion.

If this disturbance was taking place under Obama it would still be noteworthy but given that it's taking place under Trump and in the shadow of the recent (and largely failed) NATO summit, there is a growing gloom setting in over Europe. Nord Stream (and the ideology behind it) represents a faction within Germany and certainly the thinking of figures like France's Macron... even though the latter has tussled a bit with Germany over this particular issue. But the attitude can be summed up by the following: The US is unreliable. Russia is a near neighbour and it's better to find a modus vivendi, and while it's not spoken openly, not a few believe that if the US were to drop out of the picture and the Atlantic order were to end, the relationship with Moscow could prove amicable.

Once again while the Trump faction applauds his 'get tough' tactics that have 'forced' European nations to pay their 'fair share' with regard to NATO costs, the truth is that Trump's moves are weakening American power. As a Christian (and thus no supporter of the American Empire) I don't lament this reality but for those who seem to place such great stock in America's status and ability to project power... they're backing the wrong guy.

 See also:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-07/nord-stream-2-sanctions-to-be-included-in-must-pass-defense-bill-k3uzv3sd

*It's also noteworthy how on this point he US Congress acted on a bipartisan basis. Additionally for all the Democratic warnings concerning Trump being a national security threat, once again they've given him increased power and options in terms of the military and have even allowed him to divert funds to build his border wall.

In other words the posturing surrounding the impeachment is revealed to be a sham. Trump is indeed a fascistic buffoon, completely unqualified and lacking any kind of moral fibre and there are dozens of issues they could have pointed to as a basis for impeachment. What the trial is really about is the anti-Russian campaign. Trump has been aggressive, arguably more so than Obama and yet there are significant power centres within the larger US Establishment that want to pursue a full press, an aggressive campaign against Moscow, bringing both nations to the brink of war... potentially a cataclysmic war at that. Trump in this regard has proven to be a disappointment with regard to their goals. As stated elsewhere he represents the so-called Blue Team faction that views China as the immediate threat, the clear and present danger. In terms of the Terror War (so-called), he would be among those that see Russia as a natural ally. But given that the Terror War was always farcical, such views were and remain unorthodox in the eyes of the Establishment.