You seem to be so caught up in what I presume to either be your need to defend the United States or Trump. I don't want to assume that it's Trump, so I won't. But there is no defense to the story. It just highlights that the DoE is truly inept when it comes to the dangerous problem of climate change. Therefore it is ironic they are "renaming" fossil fuels. You don't need to snap at every post that points out how asinine the DoE is acting.
Except the DoE is NOT renaming fossil fuels.
Please observe for example the DoE's own website:
Guy is so dumb on history prob doesnt even realize Russia fought the Germans more than any country. Sure we helped them with lend lease program but they took brunt of assault and casualties of Germany. USA (my country) merely stepped into war at end. Now talk about Japan.... We kicked their fucking ass.
Not just Russia but the USSR fought Nazi Germany as did Britain and the US. D-Day landings were conducted mainly by British, US, and Canadian forces.
You wanna talk history?
Trump is clearly against political correctness, yet he, and/or his subordinates are using a form of political correctness to make something that's seen as negative, look positive.
What's even funnier is that it's hypocritical from the other side as well. Trumps opposition, who's hardcore about political correctness, see's this, and bashes Trump and his administration for using political correctness.
Which leads to a partial reasoning as to why Trump behaves as he does, because he knows the blame is coming his way, one way or another, no matter the hypocritical justification in this case, so he just goes ahead and does whatever he wants anyway.
If everyone's ordering hypocrisy off the menu since it's oh so satisfying, even though it costs an arm and a leg and your soul, why shouldn't he have a plate? Based on some of his trolling, at times using his opponents tactics against them for his own gain, this is right up his alley.
This all seems highly speculative.
One thing was pretty stable over the past decades: natural gas deliveries by Russia. Even during the cold war. The US on the other hand has shown time and time again, that they are willing to use every lever to influence other countries. So europe should go away from stable gas deliveries by Russia to replace them by more expensive one by the US that could be utilized in a conflict? Sounds not too intelligent.
If Europe would prefer to only have one supplier rather than two, that's totally up to them. Not a good idea though since if your sole supplier runs into trouble, Europe is left without gas.
It's actually very smart to have more than one source.
I can't believe you're attempting to spin this.
I don't care about the specifics of the deals. That's a different subject. But the absolute inanity on display as the DoE patriotizes natural gas and hydrocarbons is both laughable and extremely cringe worthy.
Seriously, imagine being a foreign dignitary trying to foster an energy contract and having to write and talk about (and sign a contract for) 'molecules of US freedom'.
I'm not the one spinning, you're the one who quote-mined.
Tell you what: if you ever come across 'freedom gas' or 'molecules of US freedom' in official written documents, let me know.
Sure, but not too long afterwards things were turning to keep Europe being dependent on the USA. The whole idea of the European Union was to form a superpower on its own in order to not become a toy of an existing superpower. While the Soviet Union was an obvious enemy, the USA too turned into a potential threat eventually.
The US isn't much of a threat when it's on the other side of the Atlantic.