Spengler draws attention to the remainder of the FRG/USSR Agreement on Economic Cooperation of 1978 with a 25 years duration 1978 Agreement of Economic Cooperation between the then Federal Republic of Germany and the USSR, designed to last for 25 years; "This agreement together with all the foregoing treaties between West Germany and the Soviet Union were the basis on which [Helmut] Kohl could build his 'Haus Europa' with the Soviet Union/Russia from the summer of 1989 in Bonn onwards."
Crucially, this agreement also included a gas transportation triangle between Moscow, Teheran and Bonn, and was "fiercely but completely clandestinely embattled by the Carter administration, among so many silent wars against the Federal Republic of Germany in those years."
And guess who was trying to sabotage the agreement 24/7; recently deceased Polish "Grand Chessboarder" Zbigniew Brzezinski.
So nothing much changed since the late 1970s; Washington demonizing both Tehran and Moscow. The section of the US Senate bill related to Russia is some sort of afterthought to yet another hardcore package against Iran, the Countering Iran's Destabilizing Activities Act (which includes the Russia sanctions.)
It's not an accident that the US Senate sanctions bill targets energy; this is a sub-product of a fierce energy war. But what is the US Senate really up to? Call it creative (lucrative) destruction. The US Senate is convinced that Nord Stream 2 "would compete with US exports of liquefied natural gas to Europe." Thus the US government "should prioritize the export of United States energy resources in order to create American jobs, help United States allies and partners, and strengthen United States foreign policy."
Yet this has absolutely nothing to do with helping "allies and partners"; it's rather a case of US energy majors getting a little help from their friends/puppets in the Senate. It's in the public domain how US energy majors donated over $50 million in 2015/2016 to get these people elected.
Watch those Hamburg fireworks
Compared to the US Senate, the role of the European Commission (EC) in the saga remained somewhat murky, until it became clear it will interfere via a "mandate." This "mandate" will have to be approved by a "reinforced qualified majority" vote by member states, a higher than usual threshold of 72 percent of EU states representing 65 percent of the population.
Spengler observes how, "the commission's continued attempts to get a legal foot in the contracts between European companies and Gazprom would be much more detrimental and potentially efficient than even a President's signing of the Senate (and House) sanctions law."
So where will this all lead? Arguably towards an extremely messy clash "between the European Commission/Court of Justice and German/Austrian (plus Russian) jurisdiction."
The Senate bill will have to be backed by a veto-proof majority in the House; that vote won't happen before the G-20 in Hamburg. Then it would become law -- assuming President Trump won't squash it.
The key, "nuclear" issue is a non-mandatory clause for the US Treasury to sanction those five Western firms involved in Nord Stream 2. If the law is approved, the White House better ignore it. Otherwise Germany, Austria and France will definitely interpret it as a declaration of war.
Trump and Chancellor Angela Merkel will definitely be on a collision course at the G-20, with Merkel emphasizing discussions on climate change, refugees and no trade protectionism, much to Trump's disgust. The Russia sanctions bill just adds to the unholy mess. Expect a lot of fireworks "celebrating" those bilaterals in Hamburg.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
5
3
2
