By CFACT Ed
BY MAJOR GENERAL BOB DEES:
National security is built on infrastructure long before it is tested on the battlefield. Tanks, aircraft, and troops cannot operate without fuel, electricity, and the industrial capacity behind them. Neither can the American economy. The pipelines, refineries, storage facilities, and export terminals that form the backbone of America’s energy network are therefore more than commercial assets. They are part of the nation’s strategic foundation.
Today, however, that foundation is under growing pressure from lawfare.
Now, the legal fallout from the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) protests appears to be opening a related but distinct front. This one could weaken accountability for illegal efforts to disrupt American energy projects and compound the uncertainty surrounding long-term infrastructure investment.
Following the DAPL protests, a North Dakota jury found Greenpeace liable for facilitating a coordinated and unlawful campaign against Energy Transfer – the company behind the pipeline – and the court entered a judgment of approximately $345 million. Yet a countersuit the organization has filed in the Netherlands challenges the American litigation that produced that verdict and seeks relief that could blunt its consequences. What happens now could affect how effectively the U.S. can protect critical energy infrastructure from unlawful interference.
If Greenpeace succeeds in using a foreign court to dilute accountability imposed by the American legal system, other activist organizations may conclude that they can disrupt energy projects without impunity. It would be as simple as seeking relief abroad when impacted parties try to hold them to account. That would embolden the tactics that make infrastructure harder and more expensive to build and undermine energy security.
Developers would face greater construction delays and security costs. Investors and insurers would price in the added risk. Legal uncertainty would leave America with less capacity and resilience when demand rises or a crisis strikes. This would not only affect economic security but embolden our adversaries to use energy as an instrument of coercion.
This should concern Europe as much as the U.S.
Russia offered the clearest recent warning after invading Ukraine, when it weaponized gas supplies and deliberately disrupted flows. The resulting shock sent European energy prices to unprecedented levels and exposed how dependence on an adversary for energy can constrain nations in a crisis. American LNG gave Europe an alternative: the continent received 68% of U.S. LNG exports in 2025 as it continued reducing its dependence on Russian energy. This experience demonstrated that energy security depends on reliable suppliers and the infrastructure needed to deliver their resources.
The broader American energy network that helped protect Europe from Russian coercion also strengthens NATO’s ability to endure a prolonged crisis. During my service as deputy commander of V Corps in Europe, I saw firsthand how reliable energy is a critical component of collective security. Given that a court in the Netherlands, a founding member of the Alliance, would consider a ruling creating a self-inflicted vulnerability on both sides of the Atlantic, it is clear that European nation energy policies and actions need to consistently reinforce the need for collective energy security.
The Dutch court should therefore reject any claim that would contradict matters decided in North Dakota or impose offsetting liability for Energy Transfer’s successful case. European policymakers should ensure that protections for public participation do not become tools for undermining accountability imposed by an allied nation’s courts.
American officials must also treat this as more than a dispute between private parties. The administration should use appropriate diplomatic and legal channels to defend American judgments and make the resilience of U.S. energy infrastructure part of the transatlantic security conversation.
The lesson from Europe is that a nation unable to secure dependable energy becomes vulnerable to those that control it. The vast energy supplies and robust network of energy infrastructure the U.S. possesses allows the country and its allies the freedom to withstand coercion and respond in a crisis. Energy security is national security, and America must preserve the legal certainty required to build and defend the infrastructure on which both depend.
Ret. Major General Bob Dees has more than 30 years of military leadership, including senior command roles in Europe. Dees brings firsthand expertise on the critical links between energy security, infrastructure resilience, and military readiness.
This article originally appeared at Real Clear Energy
Correction: with impunity.
But an excellent article. Thanks, Bob Dees, it’s nice to know that someone with their brain in gear can get to the upper ranks. Well, could, anyway.
How did the Greenpeace protesters travel to pipeline site? Did they ride horses, donkeys and bicycles? Did they drive their cars and SUV’s to the site? Did they ask the First Nation People to use their pickup trucks which have really big V-8 engines to transport them to the site? Meanwhile the Rainbow Warrior is out on the oceans burning up tons of marine fuel.
How ignorant and stupid are these people? Fossil fuels keep billions of humans and their pets from freezing to death in winter.
The protestors suffer from a form of stockholm syndrome. Look it up. All the things wrong are their fault as they live the good life so they must protest to show they are not the guilty one. Mental illness comes to mind. The leaders live a very good life raking in millions. BLM leaders did the same thing and spent the millions buying homes in Hollywood.
Well stated. Domestically in the U.S., this applies to states as well. As has been noted on these pages before, state laws, regulations and policies in California and to some degree in other blue states can also threaten national security.
Law war in the USA is an old institution and is used to silence the other side all the time. The reason is very simple. There is zero cost essentially to sueing. The same behavior is used all the time in the civil courts to get the insurance companies to settle and the public pays the price in much higher insurance bills. When covid showed up the medical establishment lawyers told the doctors and hospitals to not use any drugs off label to treat covid patients to prevent lawsuits, 400,000 americans died as a result. One such off label drug in a 100K patient trial in Brazil found a reduction in the death rate of 94% when used within 5 days of symptom’s.
“Tanks, aircraft, and troops cannot operate without fuel, electricity, and the industrial capacity behind them.”
Oh, but yuh gotta have faith in green energy. 🙂
A lot of the motivation in NATO is the USA will replace all the old stuff sent to the Ukraine with new arms at taxpayer expense. Germany for example had put most of its tanks in storage years ago to fund its welfare state. Germany sent all the older models of tanks to the Ukraine and wll replace them with the newest models. All the rest of NATO sending arms is doing the same thing.
“Obama and Merkel decided to sponsor an armed coup”
Got any proof of that? I’ve seen videos of the riots in the streets in Ukraine – mostly young people who decided they didn’t want to be part of the “Russian Empire”. Why on Earth would they want to be part of the Russian Empire- given the long history of Russian repression of Ukraine? How many troops did Kennedy send to Cuba?
The Obama Administration encouraged and supported the violent overthrow of the elected government of Ukraine, a government that was the result of an election that international observers overwhelmingly concluded was both free and fair. A majority of Ukrainians understood that aligning their economy with the European Union would cause a massive disruption to their inventories, supply chains, and infrastructure. Russian standards for electricity, the pitch of the threads of nuts and bolts, and numerous other things, are different and incompatible with European standards; which would eventually render almost everything in their homes and their workplaces obsolete. Of course the globalists in the EU and the USA just couldn’t stand the idea that their self proclaimed utopia would be rejected by anyone.
Young Ukrainians didn’t want to be part of a the fascist Putin regime. Not that I’m a fan of the EU, but the young people and many others in that nation didn’t want it. They did have a revolution, just like many other nations. Did the majority of American colonials want to break from the British Empire? No, they didn’t but that happened. The fact that they had a revolution- and you say it’s all inspired by Obama? That’s crazy. It turns out America doesn’t have that kind of influence in the world though we might like it. As bad as the EU is, it ain’t fascist like Russia. I suppose you’re a Holodomar denier. And regardless of how and why they had that revolution, how does that give Russia the right to enter that nation with 200K troops and thousands of tanks?
If you want an illustrative example of the sort of destruction which young people can wreak upon a society you need look no further than the Cultural Revolution in the People’s Republic of China. Young people know little and have accomplished less, and have an alarming tendency to fervently believe that an idea is good merely because it is new. I’m not a supporter of Putin or of Russia, I’m a supporter of truth; and the truth is that cynical foreigners meddled in the internal affairs of Ukraine with the intention of growing their markets and increasing their profits.
Well, meddling in the “internal affairs of Ukraine with the intention of growing their markets and increasing their profits” is a hell of a lot less destructive than sending in 200K troops with thousands of tanks resulting in the destruction of countless cities and human lives. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
I think you have many things wrong. Putin said in 2005 he would like to see the Soviet Union be formed again. That meant that Poland, Chechia (as it’s now called) and others would be subject to Russia. The horrors in Chechia with tanks running over people who were protesting is one example. Putin was happy when Russia controlled the Ukraine government. When the Russian influenced president was removed for corruption Putin was unhappy.
Yes there were problems with gas and there was fighting in eastern Ukraine near the Russian border. Russians were crossing the border and Ukraine was fighting back. Putin called the Ukraine fighters Nazis and partially used that excuse to start the war. He really wanted the Ukraine farmland particularly west of Kiev.
I have been to Ukraine multiple times starting in 2002. I have visited the major cities along the Dneper river.
The entry to Ukraine was visa free (no fee). Arrival at the Kiev airport a breeze. Walking thru the arrivals was like American normal people chatting TVs playing etc. The hotel was very nice and staff friendly. English was being taught in schools. Kiev was beautiful and I walked around the city on a number of days.
People were generally very friendly.
I visited Russia for the first time in 2004. Visa $150 for 3 months. Arrival was easy passport etc. I stepped in the Arrival hall and there were uniforms of different type everywhere. Out to get a taxi to the hotel I was approached by the money changers (mafia) who would only take new bills (banks also). I went to the Cosmo hotel. There was a guard at the elevators to prevent unauthorized people onto the elevator.
I traveled to St Petersburg which was beautiful and the Hermitage and Pushkin was as well.
I met a woman later who recommended her by my interpreter. She eventually came to the US and we were married. Later she went back to Russia to take care of her ailing mother. She has been there since. I still hear from her and things are very bad, Inflation probably around 15%. Drone warfare blowing up infastructure, A Russian independent news estimates as many as 250,000 Russian deaths in the war. Putin on the other hand is bombing civilians and civilian structures and has theratened tactical nukes.
bingo!
I don’t know how international judgements work, hell I barely understand our own justice system it has become so convoluted. I can tell you one thing I don’t give a damn what a court in the Netherlands decides or any other country. We will take care of our own business.