SECRETARY BLINKEN: Well, good afternoon, everybody. Bonjour, tout le monde. Foreign Minister Joly, Mélanie, as always, I’m delighted to welcome you back to the State Department, to the United States, and it is a great pleasure to continue our ongoing collaboration on so many issues that join our countries together. As is fitting for such a close […]
No, there are two separate quotes that you keep insisting are related when they aren’t. One is that the US is supplying LNG to make up for Russia cutting off supplies to Europe. The other is that the current situation provides an opportunity to transition from dependence on Russian fossil fuel to renewables. They aren’t even in adjacent parts of the speech, given that multiple speakers are rotating.
And so we’ve significantly increased our production as well as making available to Europe liquefied natural gas. And we’re now the leading supplier of LNG to Europe to help compensate for any gas or oil that it’s losing as a result of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.
This is a direct quote stating that US is now the leading supplier of LNG to Europe. Furthermore, it’s not like there isn’t prior context here of US trying to get Europe to switch to using US LNG instead of Russian pipeline gas.
Meanwhile, even the clean energy part of the speech clearly talks about opportunities for US to sell things to Europe:
One way to do that is through the Inflation Reduction Act, which provides more than $368 billion for clean energy technologies like electric vehicles and battery components that are manufactured in North America. It’s the biggest, most ambitious climate investment in the history of our country; it offers a chance for us to deepen our economic integration and expand inclusive economic opportunity for our people.
Stop trying to pretend that tying Europe to American LNG and manufacturing isn’t directly benefiting America at the expense of Europe.
This is a direct quote stating that US is now the leading supplier of LNG to Europe.
Which has little to do with your headline “Blinken calls Nord Stream sabotage a tremendous strategic opportunity for years to come.” The association between those two portions of the speech is a complete fabrication.
…it offers a chance for us to deepen our economic integration and expand inclusive economic opportunity for our people.
That paragraph is pretty clear. The Inflation Reduction Act is an investment that will benefit both sides of the Atlantic. The key part is “deepen our [Europe’s and North America’s] economic integration” to provide “economic opportunity” in both regions. This is in contrast to how the US has historically approached climate issues, constantly falling short of meaningful actions.
Which has little to do with your headline “Blinken calls Nord Stream sabotage a tremendous strategic opportunity for years to come.” The association between those two portions of the speech is a complete fabrication.
The association between those two points is pretty direct actually given that he literally lists what these opportunities are.
That paragraph is pretty clear. The Inflation Reduction Act is an investment that will benefit both sides of the Atlantic.
No, it benefits the US because it will be selling gas and products to Europe. It completely fucks Europe because it’s becoming deinudstrialized as a result:
Oh look, Jeffery Sachs, who is the Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University and President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, going Z route. Get yourself checked for brain worms bud.
Somebody who is capable of basic reasoning would realize that just because something would align with what Russia says doesn’t make it automatically false. Dismissing obvious things by saying it’s a Z route is a logical fallacy, and the fact that you don’t understand that further underscores your lack of intellectual capacity. Congratulations for providing further evidence for that.
No, there are two separate quotes that you keep insisting are related when they aren’t. One is that the US is supplying LNG to make up for Russia cutting off supplies to Europe. The other is that the current situation provides an opportunity to transition from dependence on Russian fossil fuel to renewables. They aren’t even in adjacent parts of the speech, given that multiple speakers are rotating.
This is a direct quote stating that US is now the leading supplier of LNG to Europe. Furthermore, it’s not like there isn’t prior context here of US trying to get Europe to switch to using US LNG instead of Russian pipeline gas.
Meanwhile, even the clean energy part of the speech clearly talks about opportunities for US to sell things to Europe:
Stop trying to pretend that tying Europe to American LNG and manufacturing isn’t directly benefiting America at the expense of Europe.
Which has little to do with your headline “Blinken calls Nord Stream sabotage a tremendous strategic opportunity for years to come.” The association between those two portions of the speech is a complete fabrication.
That paragraph is pretty clear. The Inflation Reduction Act is an investment that will benefit both sides of the Atlantic. The key part is “deepen our [Europe’s and North America’s] economic integration” to provide “economic opportunity” in both regions. This is in contrast to how the US has historically approached climate issues, constantly falling short of meaningful actions.
The association between those two points is pretty direct actually given that he literally lists what these opportunities are.
No, it benefits the US because it will be selling gas and products to Europe. It completely fucks Europe because it’s becoming deinudstrialized as a result:
deleted by creator
Oh look, Jeffery Sachs, who is the Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University and President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, going Z route. Get yourself checked for brain worms bud.
https://twitter.com/sahouraxo/status/1576976409485901827
Removed by mod
Somebody who is capable of basic reasoning would realize that just because something would align with what Russia says doesn’t make it automatically false. Dismissing obvious things by saying it’s a Z route is a logical fallacy, and the fact that you don’t understand that further underscores your lack of intellectual capacity. Congratulations for providing further evidence for that.
deleted by creator