US LNG Diplomacy in Greece Serves American and Greek Corporate Interests at the Expense of Greek Households and Sovereignty
Source: Christos Avramidis. "When Gas Diplomacy Sounds Like Regime Change." October 25, 2026. jacobin.com
The Gist
The author argues that the American push to sell liquefied natural gas through Greece mainly benefits US exporters, American geopolitical power, and a few Greek companies. Meanwhile ordinary Greeks face high energy bills, environmental costs, and pressure from a more powerful ally. The Guilfoyle scandal is presented as a revealing glimpse of this wider arrangement.
Conclusion
The US-backed push to make Greece a hub for American LNG, exemplified by Ambassador Guilfoyle's tenure, serves American geopolitical and corporate interests and well-connected Greek capital, while ordinary Greek households bear the costs through high energy prices, environmental harm, and diminished sovereignty.
Premises
- Guilfoyle's farewell statement named American people, businesses, and 'energy dominance' as the beneficiaries of her mission, not Greek households struggling with energy bills.
- Greek business interests stand to profit directly from the US LNG route: AKTOR paid a lobbyist who accompanied Guilfoyle to official meetings, and its LNG venture with DEPA has a 20-year contract with Venture Global and projected ~€1.8 billion in EBITDA.
- Replacing Russian gas with LNG swaps one dependence for another, tying European prices to volatile global gas markets, and LNG carries higher supply-chain emissions than nearby-produced gas.
- Europe's marginal-pricing electricity market lets gas set prices even when it supplies a small share of generation, so households pay inflated prices while energy companies earn windfall profits (Motor Oil and HELLENiQ profits rose sharply).
- The Greek government could have imposed windfall taxes or refinery margin caps, as Poland did, but chose not to.
- The reported Guilfoyle remark ('We can do this to any country we want'), her earlier contempt for Greeks, and the protest restrictions during Rubio's visit fit a longer history of US interference in Greek sovereignty.
Assumptions
- The beneficiaries named in an ambassador's farewell statement reveal the real purpose and distribution of benefits of the policy.
- Lobbying ties and shared commercial interests indicate that policy is driven by those interests rather than by genuine energy-security considerations.
- Corporate profit increases are attributable to the pricing structure and policy choices rather than mainly to global market conditions or export sales.
- The Wall Street Journal's account of Guilfoyle's remark is accurate, despite her lawyer's dispute.
- Energy-security diversification away from Russian gas has little real value compared with its costs.
- Historical US interventions in Greece are relevant evidence of current US intentions.