President Biden on Nord Stream 2 Pipeline if Russia Invades Ukraine: "We will bring an end to it."

What people said

somenameforme · 2026-08 · Reference

Things being a talking point doesn't mean they're untrue. The US is and was the only party that made any logical sense, to say nothing of also being one of only a handful of nations with the technical expertise to do so as well. The US was against the Nord Stream from the beginning because we felt it could deepen ties between Germany and Russia, unilaterally sanctioned companies involved in it, and of course Biden publicly alluded to threats of blowing it up: "If Russia invades ... then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it." "How will you do that, since the project is under Germany's control?" "We will, uh, I promise you, we will, uh, be able to do that *smirking*." [1] With it blown up we're able to make Europe completely dependent upon US gas sold at a high premium. Well, at least that was probably the goal. Technically the attack failed and at least one of the pipelines was/is still viable, but the US probably was hedging their bets because there was no way to anticipate exactly how enthusiastic Europe would be about setting aside their own self interests for the sake of US geopolitics. It also helps ensure less chance of a reconciliation between Russia and Europe which is probably seen as a reasonable way of weakening both. Reading "Project for the New American Century" [2] by the typical names that show in basically every US presidency, Democrat and Republican alike, is crucial to understanding US geopolitics. And one thing we obsess over i

Read the original HN comment ↗

AndriyKunitsyn · 2025-09 · Reference

The wonders of propaganda make it so that "Ukrainians bombed it" is given as an irrefutable fact, and not something that needs a lot of evidence. Nobody remembers anymore that Pres. Biden himself said, “If Russia invades ... there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.” [°] Nor that the very next day, a EU parliament member, and now Polish foreign minister Radosław Sikorski thanked the US for the sabotage [^]. Nor that the same day, a competing natural gas pipeline has opened, the Baltic Pipe [_]. None of this matters, because "Ukrainians bombed it". Because WaPo and WSJ said so. In a waterway that is heavily controlled by all kinds of NATO vessels. Where NATO had an exercise 3 months before that, called BALTOPS. Come on. [°] [VIDEO] [^] [LINK] [_] [LINK]

Read the original HN comment ↗

atmosx · 2025-03 · Reference

> I find it refreshing, however, that the "we are the evil empire now" idea is getting out of the closet. Call a spade a spade. “Good” and “evil” are moral constructs that haven’t played a meaningful role in documented geopolitics since at least the 4th century BC. There’s a well-known quote often attributed to Hastings Ismay that captures NATO’s original purpose. I won’t paste it here as it might come off as a bit harsh, and I’m not trying to drag this discussion out further. > That's a fantasy, unless you think Germany is occupied by the USA. But that's not the case. Circling back to Germany—I honestly can't think of a more humiliating moment for any NATO member than this[^1]. Sure, Mr. Biden was more aesthetically pleasing than Mr. Trump but take a moment to consider the symbolism and the signals sent to ally nations. Regardless of media narratives, the events of September 26, 2022, marked a turning point that fundamentally altered Germany’s economic path and future. It was a hostile act on a massive scale, and its consequences are undeniably real for the country. [^1]: [VIDEO]

Read the original HN comment ↗