Sensationalism and the Geopolitics of Nordstream-2

http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Moscow-uses-gas-to-blackmail-Europe-54243.html

This qualifies as sensationalism but given the source it's not terribly surprising. This Catholic-affiliated website has a long record of promoting the narratives of the Western Establishment when it comes to foreign policy and investment.

The US is livid that Nordstream-2 was completed. They want to choke the Russian economy and bypass its energy exportation by means of Ukraine – also giving a boost to Kiev. From that angle the considerations are neither economic nor humanitarian, but geopolitical. Where the economic angle comes in is in the realm of American Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) which the US has sought to promote in Europe as another option to Russian gas. So far there have only been a few takers. Once again the Trump period and its erratic instability did little to help the American case for investment.

Another truth related to this issue is that Ukraine is just as corrupt as Russia and far more susceptible to infrastructure failures and interruptions. At that point if Russia wanted to disrupt the Ukrainian gas flow they could step up the operations in the east and pour weapons and money into the hands of the pro-separatist fighters. A hot war in Ukraine would certainly affect prices and investment.

Though it has angered Wall Street and those in the US Establishment, Merkel and her allies have increasingly sought a modus vivendi with Moscow. And as just mentioned the push toward this goal was accentuated and even accelerated by the instability of the Trump period. Europe doesn't want another war fought on its continent. US machinations are pushing nations like Poland, Ukraine, and Georgia toward conflict with Moscow. A war would mean that other flash points in Europe – Moldova, Bosnia, Serbia, and the Balkans in general would likely explode. A European war could also lead to irredentist moves by other European dissenting nations like Hungary – who at that point might 'flip' over into the Russian column if it meant potential gains. Europe (and in particular the EU) is facing deep problems. The simmering hasn't reached a boil yet, but so far the efforts made to turn down the heat (as it were) have failed. The V4 nations and their growing list of allies are generating sharp divisions within the EU. Tensions with the US are leading to questions about NATO. Brexit and the ongoing and intensifying troubles in the Balkans haven't helped either.

Merkel believes that the arrangement with Russia can work but that it will upset the US. When weighing all the issues in the balance, Berlin believes that's an acceptable trade off. The power centres of Europe – Berlin, Paris, and even Brussels are moving away from the cozy relationship with Washington. The recent moves by the US vis-à-vis Australia have also deeply angered France and you can be sure that such actions are playing in part in the creation of a European army, an entity that would render NATO (under its US-dominated structure) obsolete.

All of these factors have to be considered when one takes up Western coverage of the Russian gas pipeline issue. There's a lot going on and a lot that most audiences, particularly in places like the United States don't understand.