It was not possible for Russia to conspire with Donald Trump. The Democrats helped us to believe the story. This is not because we have the facts. We also know it because of Donald Trump’s actions, which were contrary to what Russia desired.
Trump not only helped to make America more energy-independent but as we have noted in the past, he was calling out Europe’s dependence on Russian oil. He took a lot of other actions — such as not being afraid to drop bombs on the heads of Russian contractors in Syria after they fired on U.S. forces. That energy piece, though, was perhaps the most significant indication this was a false story because that’s the most important thing to Russia.
I know CNN & MSNBC never aired this, so I figured I would. You think that’s a great idea? pic.twitter.com/6V1vRKxP8p
— Justin Pulitzer 🍊 (@JustinPulitzer) February 24, 2022
But that doesn’t mean there haven’t been other Russian “collusion” or attempts to influence the United States, as some have alleged.
In 2014 – the same year Russia annexed Crimea – then-North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen warned that Russia was covertly working to undermine European and U.S. fossil fuel production.
In 2017, Reps. Lamar Smith and Randy Weber, both Republicans from Texas, sent a long letter to Steven Mnuchin in which they made a similar claim. Importantly, their letter connected some of the dots highlighting Russia’s covert efforts to fund various environmental organizations that were trying to limit or end U.S. hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, for shale gas and oil. [….]
According to The Guardian, Rasmussen, who was also a former prime minister of Denmark, claimed in a presentation to a think tank in London, “I have met allies who can report that Russia, as part of their sophisticated information and disinformation operations, engaged actively with so-called non-governmental organizations (NGOs) – environmental organizations working against shale gas – to maintain European dependence on imported Russian gas.”
He declined to give details, saying only, “That is my interpretation.” NATO’s press office said the remarks were Rasmussen’s personal views, not official NATO policy.
Indeed. At that point, some NATO member countries seemed completely to ignore this concern, while getting into bed with Russia over oil. That’s why Trump had to call them out on it, saying it didn’t make sense for them to be doing that if the main purpose of NATO was supposed to be about defense against Russia.
That said, a NATO official did acknowledge, “Russia has been using a mix of hard and soft power in its attempt to recreate a sphere of influence, including through a campaign of disinformation on many issues, including energy.
Let’s get back to that question about environmental groups.
Smith and Weber assert that the Russian government and “complicit parties” had a scheme that “allows money originating from foreign countries like Russia to funnel through Bermuda-based shell companies to environmental groups in the United States with the aim of disrupting the U.S. energy industry.”
They alleged that “tens of millions of dollars” were handed to Bermuda-based Klein Ltd., which then funneled the money to the Sea Change Foundation, which distributed the funds to various NGOs.
Environmental groups are clearly having some success fighting against fracking. New York City, Washington State and Maryland all have outlawed fracking. California Gov. Gavin Newsom last year issued an executive order banning fracking within the state until 2024.
As Michael Shellenberger explains in a great Twitter thread, Europe has a ton of shale gas potential, so there’s no need to be dependent on Russia. Yet, protests and the climate change agenda are what have prevented them from plumbing those possibilities — that such things are impacting us as well.
Many people believe that Europe is dependent on Russia because Russia lacks energy. However, 15 years ago Europe exported much more natural gas to Russia than it does now. Russia now exports three times more gas per unit than Europe. Why? Why? Because Russia partially funded climate activists who blocked fracking. pic.twitter.com/m9ifRLs0ku
— Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) March 3, 2022
In Europe, it was a simple thought — the more reliant that Europe was made on Russian oil, the less likely it was that it would act with effectiveness against Russia. That was demonstrated by the struggle Germany went through to accept SWIFT sanctions. But, that only applied to seven banks according to Oleksandra Ustinova (a Ukrainian member) As the Biden Administration has said, they’re not trying to affect Russian energy. What’s the excuse? That they don’t want to affect others who are dependent on Russian oil. Russian attempts at making Europeans dependent are successful.
This is what should have been looked into, but it wasn’t because that would require the Biden team to take a hard look into things — and they don’t want to look at it.
However, Biden has made us more dependent. We now import 595,000 barrels a day of Russian oil. We must get rid of as many foreign assets as we can and rebuild our national independence if we don’t want to continue to face a security crisis. Biden’s response to this is to dismiss it. Listen as Biden’s Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman tells Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL) that we shouldn’t say no to Russia, although we might need to “reevaluate,” in light of national security concerns and climate change.
REP. BRIAN MAST: “Should Europe and the West…divest of Russian energy?”
BIDEN’S DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE WENDY SHERMAN: “No” pic.twitter.com/JPep1OMNE7
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) March 2, 2022
Translation: they’re now using this to try to buttress their argument to divest from all fossil fuels rather than seeing that it shows — more than ever — why we need to have our own energy independence.
About Post Author
