Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Excerpt from US Senators Risch and McCaul letter to Biden Secretary of State Blinken: “The Russian regime has used its leverage over Europe’s energy supply in the past to exert its political aims throughout Europe… Russia cut off gas transit to Europe through Ukraine in 2006, 2009, 2014, 2015, and 2018 to create external pressure, while also using revenue and relationships from Russian energy projects to facilitate malign influence efforts and strategic corruption throughout the transatlantic community. It is both easier and more effective to stop the problem before it even begins. The White House has repeatedly explained why Nord Stream 2 ‘is a bad deal for Europe.’ Unfortunately, the Administration’s recent actions suggest otherwise.” Say one thing and do another appears to be Biden-Blinken’s policy. (See entire letter after article excerpts-commentary)

A Polish perspective: “Nord Stream 2: German and U.S. Credibility Suffers Serious Damage 21 MAJ 2021, Nord Stream 2 was designed as a pipeline that is supposed to supply gas to Central Europe, not to Germany and Western Europe. The goal of the Russians is to ensure that by putting pressure on Germany, they can use them as a proxy to blackmail the states of Central Europe. By Sławomir Dębski, The Polish Institute of International Affairs, excerpt: “Signaling limited American sanctions on Nord Stream 2 is part of a new “reset,” both with Germany and authoritarian Russia. The previous “reset,” launched by the Obama administration, led to catastrophe in Europe – outright war in Ukraine. Today, many of those same people, oblivious to their experiences, are again announcing how they’ll build world “peace” with Russia… The appeasement policy towards Putin is part of an American attempt to free itself from its obligations of maintaining peace in Europe. The bargain is that Americans will allow Putin to finish building the Nord Stream 2 pipeline in exchange for Putin’s commitment not use it to blackmail Eastern Europe. Sounds convincing? Sounds like something you heard before? It’s not without reason that Winston Churchill commented on the American decision-making process: “Americans can always be trusted to do the right thing, once all other possibilities have been exhausted.” https://pism.pl/publikacje/Nord_Stream_2_German_and_US_Credibility_Suffers_Serious_Damage

At Munich, British Prime Minister “Chamberlain got an international agreement that Hitler should have the Sudetenland in exchange for Germany making no further demands for land in Europe. Chamberlain said it was ‘Peace for our time’. Hitler said he had ‘No more territorial demands to make in Europe.’ On 1 October German troops occupied the Sudetenland: Hitler had got what he wanted without firing a shot… Six months later, in March 1939, German troops took over the rest of Czechoslovakia. Poland seemed to be the next most likely victim of Nazi aggression and Chamberlain made an agreement with the Poles to defend them in Germany invaded. Hitler did not think Britain would go to war over Poland, having failed to do so over Czechoslovakia. He sent his soldiers into Poland in September 1939. Two days later, Britain declared war on Germany“.” OGL: https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/chamberlain-and-hitler/

Whatever is going on appears to be even older and uglier than the article by Sławomir Dębski suggests. Blinken’s stepfather was a strong advocate of US-Soviet and US-Russian ties, took western business people to the Soviet Union to make deals and was Robert Maxwell’s lawyer. Maxwell seems to have been engaged in corrupt dealings in the Eastern Bloc-Soviet Union in both the communist and post-communist period. Whatever is in Blinken’s book on the Reagan era Soviet pipeline came directly or indirectly from his stepfather. Even the style appears to be similar to Samuel Pisar, based upon this 1988 critique of Blinken’s book by Patrick J. DeSouza: “writing about the response of the Western alliance to the Soviet Pipeline crisis, one would expect a chapter exploring theoretical questions about the geopolitical interests of the alliance vis-a-vis the Soviet Union… Blinken does not develop this theoretical analysis. He spends a great deal of time setting out the internal divisions within the Western alliance and not enough on how these divisions relate to the common goal of a preferred public order that the alliance was designed to achieve.” See: “Review Essay- For Whom the Bell Tolls: The Soviet Gas Pipeline Crisis and the Making of International Law ALLY VERSUS ALLY: AMERICA, EUROPE, AND THE SIBERIAN PIPELINE CRISIS”. By Antony J. Blinken.t New York and Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Publishers-Greenwood Press, 1987. Pp. x, 193., Yale J of International Law, Vol. 13:199, 1988 https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1520&context=yjil (DeSouza notes that Blinken’s book started as an undergrad thesis at Harvard.)

This document by Blinken’s stepfather appears to be largely descriptive, as well. He also pretends to think that sanctions are good. However, he seems to use the excuse that since sanctions are only effective if everyone abides by them, then there isn’t a point in doing them. Pisar apparently had the preconceived notion that he wanted to do trade with the communist countries, so used description and the sort of double-speak that Blinken is using: “A New Look at Trade Policy Toward the Communist Bloc, The Elements of a Common Strategy for the West“, Materials Prepared for the Subcommittee on Foreign Economic Policy of the Joint Economic Committee, US Senate, 1961, By Samuel Pisar https://www.jec.senate.gov/reports/87th%20Congress/A%20New%20Look%20at%20Trade%20Policy%20Toward%20the%20Communist%20Bloc%20(194).pdf (Note that our opinion of the document is based upon scanning through it and upon things that we have found in general reading about Pisar. Note the presence of Prescott Bush and of Clinton mentor Fulbright. Always read and judge for yourself.)

“MAY 26, 2021
RISCH, MCCAUL: NORD STREAM 2 SUBJECT TO CAATSA SANCTIONS
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Jim Risch (R-Idaho), ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and U.S. Representative Michael McCaul (R-Texas), lead Republican of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, yesterday sent a letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken requesting an explanation from the administration as to why Nord Stream 2 AG has not been sanctioned under Section 228 of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), as required by law.

“We are very concerned and disappointed by the Administration’s decision to waive sanctions on Nord Stream 2 AG, the company responsible for the planning, construction, and operation of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project,” wrote the members. “We expect that you will justify this decision in specific detail to both the Senate Foreign Relations and the House Foreign Affairs Committees.”

“In addition, we would like you to explain to the committees why Nord Stream 2 AG has not been sanctioned under Section 228 of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (“CAATSA”),” continued the members. “Your most recent report under PEESA included Nord Stream 2 AG precisely because of its role in facilitating “deceptive or structured transactions” for, or on behalf of, entities sanctioned under PEESA so as to provide vessels for the construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. You have now made the legal connection that warrants the application of sanctions under 228.”

“It is both easier and more effective to stop the problem before it even begins,” concluded the members. “The White House has repeatedly explained why Nord Stream 2 “is a bad deal for Europe.” Unfortunately, the Administration’s recent actions suggest otherwise.”

Full text of the letter can be found here https://www.foreign.senate.gov/download/05-25-21-risch-mccaul-letter-re-ns2-sec228 and below:

Dear Secretary Blinken,

We are very concerned and disappointed by the Administration’s decision to waive sanctions on Nord Stream 2 AG, the company responsible for the planning, construction, and operation of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project, in the most recent report to Congress under the Protecting Europe’s Energy Security Act (“PEESA”).

We strongly disagree that it is in the national interests of the United States to issue this waiver, as it will further enable Russian leverage over European allies’ energy supply. We expect that you will justify this decision in specific detail to both the Senate Foreign Relations and the House Foreign Affairs Committees. In addition, we would like you to explain to the committees why Nord Stream 2 AG has not been sanctioned under Section 228 of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (“CAATSA”).

Section 228 of CAATSA requires the President to impose sanctions with respect to a foreign person “if the President determines that the foreign person knowingly,” on or after August 2, 2017, “facilitates a significant transaction or transactions, including deceptive or structured transactions, for or on behalf of . . . any person subject to sanctions imposed by the United States with respect to the Russian Federation.”

Your most recent report under PEESA included Nord Stream 2 AG precisely because of its role in facilitating “deceptive or structured transactions” for, or on behalf of, entities sanctioned under PEESA so as to provide vessels for the construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. You have now made the legal connection that warrants the application of sanctions under 228. 

Specifically, one of those entities with which Nord Stream 2 AG apparently facilitated a deceptive or structured transaction is LLC Koksokhimtrans, a company that reportedly owns two of the vessels identified in the most recent PEESA report. This same entity was also previously sanctioned by the Obama Administration under Executive Order 13685 for its operations in Crimea and its connections to another sanctioned entity, the Sovfracht-Sovmortrans Group. Why has Nord Stream 2 AG not been designated for sanctions under CAATSA as a result of its relationship with LLC Koksokhimtrans?

Another entity identified in the most recent PEESA report is LLC Mortransservice, a maritime company that reportedly acquired ownership of another one of the vessels identified in the report. LLC Mortransservice appears to be the successor to a similarly named corporation established by the previously-sanctioned Russian shipping and logistics company, Sovfracht-Sovmortrans Group. The Sovfracht-Sovmortrans Group was sanctioned by the Obama Administration under Executive Order 13685 for its operations in Crimea. Given the apparent connections between LLC Mortransservice, LLC Koksokhimtrans, and this other previously sanctioned entity, we would like to know whether any foreign persons or entities affiliated with these companies have been involved in sanctions evasion efforts in connection with the Sovfracht-Sovmortrans Group or the Nord Stream 2 project.

The Russian regime has used its leverage over Europe’s energy supply in the past to exert its political aims throughout Europe, almost always at Ukraine’s expense.

Russia cut off gas transit to Europe through Ukraine in 2006, 2009, 2014, 2015, and 2018 to create external pressure, while also using revenue and relationships from Russian energy projects to facilitate malign influence efforts and strategic corruption throughout the transatlantic community. It is both easier and more effective to stop the problem before it even begins. The White House has repeatedly explained why Nord Stream 2 “is a bad deal for Europe.” Unfortunately, the Administration’s recent actions suggest otherwise.

Please provide a detailed response to this letter, no later than June 8, 2021, addressing: (1) why you issued a waiver under PEESA for Nord Stream 2 AG, (2) why Nord Stream 2 AG has not been sanctioned under Section 228 of CAATSA, and (3) the questions regarding LLC Mortransservice, LLC Koksokhimtrans, and the Sovfracht-Sovmortrans Group.
Sincerely, https://www.foreign.senate.gov/press/ranking/release/risch-mccaul-nord-stream-2-subject-to-caatsa-sanctions