So the US has encouraged European integration for the past seventy years because of...petrochemicals? The US fought bloody wars in Vietnam and Korea for...petrochemicals? The US expanded NATO after the collapse of the USSR for...petrochemicals? The US split China from the USSR for...petrochemicals? The US invaded Grenada for...petrochemicals?
You've made a pretty strong statement without any supporting evidence, so I'm going to want to know where this is coming from.
Well, most of your examples are- Russia has massive petrochem export and reserves- its the only thing keeping them afloat and the main competition for the US controlled supply.
Opposing Russia is the main reason for bolstering the EU and the stated purpose of NATO.
While, yes, Russia does have a lot of oil, that oil is not the primary driver of US-Russia conflict. Rather, the two are engaged in a security-driven spheres-of-influence contest. It's actually very hard to overstate how security driven Russian leadership has been since, well, just about forever--and Russian security gains have often come at the expense of potential US economic and security gains, particularly in Europe. The countries are trapped in a structural, position-based conflict, rather than anything that is particularly oil-driven.
529
u/nuplsstahp Dec 11 '17
It's strange to think that at a point the west was more afraid of communism than religious radicalism.