Before Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines became operational, the collective West was already sounding the possibility that Germany would not be able to operate the pipelines.
US President Joe Biden has been warning Germany not to push through with the project that would give access to cheap Russian gas, and would constitute a threat to US security.
Members of the European Union must bear in mind that even before the pipeline started its construction, the Americans have vehemently opposed the project, insisting that the pipeline is a threat to its national security without stating that the real reason that Russia wants to break the anticipated US monopoly in the supply of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Western Europe.
The entry of Russia as an exporter of LNG could seriously threaten its supply notwithstanding that its price offer of LNG is three times lower than the market value of LNG in Europe.
The steady supply of cheap LNG by Russia could endanger the alliance both on political and geostrategic grounds.
Aside from cheap LNG offered by Russia, Europe will be able to obtain a steady supply of the commodity with less fanfare from politics.
The completion of Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines will not give assurance of continuous supply to the whole of the continent of Europe which the US has been trying to integrate since World War II.
Keeping an umbilical cord with Western Europe favors US geo-political interest of which only Europe could serve as link to the heartland of trans-Asia for the purpose of reconfiguring trade and economic development, extending all the way to the North to the English Channel down to the Mediterranean and onward to Africa.
The Road and Belt Initiative (BRI) of China is one that is designed to achieve universal transformation of the continents.
The Nord Stream 1 and 2 Pipelines Project is Russia’s contribution to what some would say as the universalization of development towards a shared community of the future.
If the BRI is designed to cement a permanent link with China, the Nord Stream 1 and 2 are Russia’s contribution to universalize development.
The immediate impact of these projects is that Russia will drastically reduce the cost of energy. Natural gas from Russia will provide an efficient and cheap source of heat to industries. The pipelines are envisioned to stretch to boost industries.
Of course, oppositors will argue that traditional fuels such as oil and gas pose a danger to climate change.
This is true to nuclear energy and other alternative sources of energy, such as wind and solar energy just to satisfy the need of the environmentalists to lessen climate change.
But its production does not seem sufficient enough to quench the thirst of the industries.
The Russian proposal to supply Western Europe with natural gas has been woefully politicized by the US for fear that the steady and cheap supply of LNG will diminish US stranglehold of the commodity.
It will weaken US alliance with NATO that serves as America’s dumping ground and outlet for the sale of weapons to Europe.
To cope with the dwindling of sale of weapons, it made compulsory to NATO members to spend not less than 2 percent of their GDP and this was approved by the NATO council with the top five US arms manufacturers assured of job orders.
This has resulted in an ever-increasing dependence in the purchases of arms and weapons of some countries channeling their excess supply to overthrow legitimate governments in Latin America and Africa.
From the start, it is the US that has been weaponizing the alliance to give justification to NATO and impetus to US arms industries.
This explains why the US flatly rejected the suggestion by then Soviet Union in 1991 to disband the NATO in exchange for disbanding of the Warsaw Pact.
The US refused because it has an agenda of wanting to dismember the whole of the Russian federation. Practically, the US scrapped all its treaties with the Soviet Union, the latest of which was the scrapping of the intermediate range ballistics.
The US has more reasons to prevent Russia from completing with its Nord Stream project to assure Europe a steady supply of natural gas.
It will greatly reduce Europe’s dependence of LNG, viz. ultimately causing the EU members to declare themselves separate like what UK did to bolt EU. EU will lose its unification over the whole of Europe.
But UK’s decision to bolt has proven to be a sham. Without EU, UK would not last economically.
It persists to be a member of NATO and allows it to dispose some of the weapons to Ukraine, though officially, it is no longer an EU member but still enjoying the benefits given to a non-EU.
This is anomalous such that original EU and NATO members are questioning.
It was the US that has been using NATO as subaltern to justify the weaponization of the policy that today NATO has practically been reduced as colony to intervene in Europe.
For instance, when the US imposed trade sanction on Russia, and the latter retaliated by demanding that they should be paid in Russian ruble, it was forced to export LNG to countries that honor its currency.
The US then proceeded to accuse Russia of weaponizing its energy exports to EU.
Most important, it was Russia that initially foot the bill for the construction of the pipeline owning about 51 percent of the cost.
Despite the threat to prevent the Nord Stream project from operating, the US did not offer Europe anything like assistance or of giving a discounted rate for their LNG.
To this day, and after the sabotage of the pipeline, the US has not offered any LNG to Europe except to deliver them through its own tankers at the same market price value, but three times the cost of Russia’s LNG.
Now that the pipeline has been rendered inoperative, American propaganda keeps on trumpeting to the whole world that the explosion was carried out by Russia to justify the demands to increase the price of LNG.
But who in the world would initiate such criminal act of blasting its own pipelines to throw away something that would cost them almost 5 billion Euros to build?
As state department secretary Anthony Blinken would put it, the sabotage of the two pipelines was a “great opportunity” to stop Russians from weaponizing their export of LNG.
It is the US that has not contributed a centavo to make sure the project will operate. Russia, on the other hand, has made considerable contribution representing about 51 percent of the total cost.
The ugly result of the war in Ukraine was the offer by the US to carry on its LNG export to Europe.
Does the US still feel obligated to supply NATO members and get the priority in the supply of LNG? Or will they receive the same volume of LNG from the US?
Second and most dangerous, will Russia set idly to allow its own economy to suffer and needlessly waste millions of LNG as a result of that criminal act of economic sabotage instigated by the US?
Will Russia not do something to avenge its honor by not targeting those that owned and operated those vessels?
Is it not possible for Russia to use low-yield nuclear bombs to stop once and for all the harassment of countries that import NLG gas from Russia?
The world should be warned that its so-called rules-based hypocrisy can no longer be tolerated by resorting to punitive action of retaliation to illegal trade sanction, sabotage and criminal acts of vandalism and other forms of unilateralism which is a semblance of arrogance committed without the approval of the UN Security Council.