I don't know. 

I don't make it a regular habit to consume wine. But we have good friends when we stay winter in Bonaire that are very much into wine and we have dinner with them once or twice a week. We have wine when we eat with them. They are low carb and fix low carb meals.

I normally check my blood sugar after the meal with them including the wine. We don't drink sweet high sugar wines. I have not noticed an increase in my blood glucose after these meals with wine.

I suppose if alcohol does cause a drop in blood sugar (hypoglycemia) it could cause a person to eat more. That is what high carb foods do (like a candy bar or something). They cause an insulin spike to take care of the excess glucose in the blood, then the insulin bolus causes blood sugar to drop slightly below normal which then causes a hunger signal from the brain to get the glucose back up.

That is what I think I know on the subject.

There is a lot I don't know. for example it is 10 am. I did not check my waking blood sugar but it normally runs 125-135 which it probably was this morning. I have had nothing to eat since about 9pm last night. I did some sprints this morning, pull ups, squats and walked some. Took a fairly hot shower. Just tested my blood sugar and it was 183! Whaaaaat! It can't be from any food I ate because I have had nothing to eat or drink other than some water when I woke up. So it has to be my liver putting out the glucose.

There has been some recent Youtube videos on this subject of being low carb and even ketogenic and seeing higher blood sugar readings after exercise. A buddy of mine wears a continuous blood glucose monitor and says even a hot shower will cause a rise in blood glucose for him. The low carb doctors don't seem to be worried about it. The blood glucose spike brought on by exercise.

With the continuous blood glucose monitors people and doctors are learning things about blood glucose they never knew. And some of it is confusing. I think there is still more to be learned. Our friends stuck us with a monitor for two weeks. Wife's lasted the two weeks. Mine only made it about 5 days before the sensor failed (It survived a 175' depth scuba dive, but shortly after quit - I think I probably hit is while taking a shower). So I did not get to see a full two weeks data on my blood sugar. Funny thing is, my wifes was flat. Like we expected. Mine varied up and down a bunch, although within the range I expected it to be. 

A lot more questions on blood sugar (hypo and hyperglycemia) than answers. It is still somewhat of a puzzlement to me.

Wife and I would like to get a continuous blood glucose monitors for a month or two, just to learn more. They ain't cheap for the sensors.

Of course the ultimate question in my mind is, at what blood glucose level does actual damage to blood vessels and organs start to happen? Is it 120? 140? 160? It is hard to get an answer to that question. And does context matter?  For example the spikes during exercise that the body itself produces via the liver, are they an exception to the potential damage because the body uses them up quickly???? Like I said, more questions than answers. Continuous monitors are raising lots of questions.

One doctors opinion on the subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5Dz4qW6h3o