Bloomberg News
18 HN mentions · mentioned in 11 months, 2022–2026
0:29 · 622K views · Sep 25, 2018
A short Bloomberg clip from the 2018 UN General Assembly. Trump warns that Germany will become dependent on Russian energy, and German delegates are shown reacting with laughter.
Cited in 2022 energy-crisis threads, mostly critically, as proof that Germany was warned about Russian gas dependence.
18 comments from Hacker News
If opposing "dictators and warmongers" is so important, why were European NATO members so unprepared for the 2022 war? Poland, the Baltics, and other ex-Warsaw Pact countries by and large did their best to wean themselves off the Russian oil and gas teat they fed from during the Cold War, even while Germany and other far wealthier countries did their best to suckle ever more from the same teat. Since energy is fungible, the far higher prices they are now having to pay affect them and the rest of the world, even those like the US and UK that never relied on Russian energy themselves, but at least Poland and the Baltics tried their best. It's also entirely possible that greater European investment in defense might have dissuaded Russia from the February invasion. Or, at the least, be able to contribute now more than the relatively paltry sums and supplies they have so far sent. Again, the ex-Communist countries by and large both met the 2% GDP spending guideline that their far wealthier NATO fellow members have mostly ignored, and are sending as much gear as they can without endangering their own defense. Sweden and Finland's militaries were and are far better prepared than the average NATO member despite (or, perhaps, because of) not being part of the alliance. Consider two moments five years ago: 1) Trump and NATO secretary-general and former Norwegian PM Jens Stoltenberg argue on camera (video < [LINK] >, article < [LINK] >) about dependence on Russia. Who turned out to be r
>He was saying the USA should leave NATO. Ah yes, the other line that people pull when questioned on this topic. First, Trump did not say that the US should leave NATO. He publicly insisted/cajoled/prodded with that signature Trump charm and style that Germany and other NATO members who don't meet the 2% of GDP spending requirement—and showed zero inclination of actually meeting the 2026 deadline (itself pushed back repeatedly after first being set in 2006)—needed to do so. >In our day and age you should be arrested as traitor for saying that. Beyond the strange notion that an American should be "arrested as a traitor" for his words, a "traitor" to whom? Who benefits more from NATO membership, the US or Germany? Who benefits more, the US or Belgium? The US or Norway? The US or Italy? Would a Russian conquest of all of Ukraine endanger US security? Not really. It is Poland that would have Russian troops on hundreds more miles of its borders. It is Poland and the Baltic states that now face the risk being cut off from the rest of NATO at the Suwalki Gap. The funny thing is that Poland and the Baltics do meet the 2% spending requirement, and have so for years. It is the likes of the far wealthier Germany, Belgium, Norway, Italy that do not. When you say that a US president should have been "arrested as a traitor" for questioning the value ("obsolete", I believe he said) of a military alliance in which the US funded 69% of total military spending while the wealthiest other member
>now suffering from the Russian invasion of Ukraine As mantas said, the energy/economic issues Europe faces from the Ukraine War is 100% self-inflicted. First, Poland, the Baltics, and other ex-Warsaw Pact countries have by and large done their best to wean themselves off the Russian oil and gas teat they fed from during the Cold War, even while Germany and other far wealthier countries did their best to suckle ever more from the same teat. Since energy is fungible, the far higher prices they are now having to pay affect the rest of the world, even those like the US and UK that never relied on Russian energy themselves. Second, it's entirely possible that greater European investment in defense might have dissuaded Russia from the February invasion. Or, at the least, be able to contribute now more than the relatively paltry sums and supplies they have so far sent. Again, the ex-Communist countries by and large both met the 2% GDP spending guideline that their far wealthier NATO fellow members have mostly ignored, and are sending as much gear as they can without endangering their own defense. Consider two moments four years ago: 1) Trump and NATO secretary-general and former Norwegian PM Jens Stoltenberg argue on camera (video < [LINK] >, article < [LINK] >) about dependence on Russia. Who turned out to be right? Who turned out to be completely, totally, 100% wrong? 2) Trump at the UN warns that Germany is endangering itself by increasing dependence on Russia. German envoys lau
>“Ninety-nine per cent of the text of the articles of association is about climate and environmental protection, but 99 per cent of the money comes directly from Nord Stream II AG, which belongs to Gazprom.” >“It’s quite a curious foundation. It is a puppet construction,” said Sascha Müller-Kraenner, head of Environmental Action Germany, a green charity, which is challenging the legality of the organisation both in the German courts and with the European Commission. [LINK] and German politicians from pretty much every single party have been taking bribes from Russia for years. Their energy policy of simultaneously shutting down coal but not spinning up any nuclear made them reliant on Russian natural gas, which they've been warned about by the US for years and are now paying the price for from 2019 - [LINK] and a video from 2018 of Germany's UN delegation quite literally laughing at the suggestion they'd be reliant on Russia for energy if they proceeded with Nordstream 2. Some good schadenfreude here- this video
>until they elect a president that throws allies under the bus (I.e. NATO, NAFTA, etc) Based on recent news, Trump has done more for NATO rearmament than any US president in history. Gee, maybe sometimes drastic steps are needed when 20 years of three other presidents doing everything but stand on their heads while begging other NATO members to spend more on their own defense failed. Trump was lambasted by the usual bien-pensant suspects when he told NATO this in 2018 < [LINK] >. He was right when at the UN he warned against Western European dependence on Russian energy, for which the German foreign minister and others laughed at him < this video >. And remember, Trump isn't even in office now; he's already done more for Western collective defense than a) the putative current president and b) an actual land war in Europe! >and gives state secrets to enemies Repeat this often enough and maybe it'll come true one day!