| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| Would America fight in northern Europe? A question for NATO |
| 2018-07-16 |
| [ATimes] If fighting breaks out between Russia and its neighbors, the Baltic States are one of the likeliest battlegrounds. Various factors make this a tricky scenario for the NATO alliance. Anti-NATO mood, doubts about Germany An even greater problem for the United States is why it should fight, especially if the unfolding situation is hybrid in character, or if the local states provoke matters with the Russians, as seems potentially likely the case in the power grid controversy. Today’s mood in Washington is not too friendly to NATO or to Europeans, who have not lived up to their agreed obligations and who have diluted NATO by setting up a separate and independent European command with an unclear mandate. Then there is, in the background. the very real problem that key NATO allies could be put out of business by only the turn of a gas valve by the Russians. Germany, as US President Donald Trump recently noted, is 70% dependent on Russian natural gas that it needs to run industries, generate electricity and heat homes. Even if Washington had an inclination to fight in Poland or the Balkans, there is a very good chance its most important strategically positioned ally, Germany, won’t. The US cannot support the Balkans or Poland without the Germans because Germany is a vital staging ground. Nor can NATO’s Article 5 work without 100% consensus. Germany presents a real problem and President Trump has laid it bare. Without a radical upgrade in NATO’s posture and serious allied cooperation (not just some token troops rotating in and out of the Balkans), the US may not fight the next war in Europe since: NATO won’t necessarily agree; it is likely Germany might not cooperate; and the American people may see no upside to getting into a shooting war with Russia. |
| Posted by:3dc |
| #22 Russia cut off supply to Ukraine for non payment just makes one wonder why Germany is allowing itself to be so dependent, while planning to shut down it's nuclear plants so there won't be any back up. |
| Posted by: Jan 2018-07-16 18:07 |
| #21 And don't forget: Russia depends a lot more on trade with Germany than the other way round. Russia also has the reputation of being a reliable supplier. Even in the Cold War the USSR always honored its commitments. Breaking them would be a disaster for their economy. Energy and arms is all they have to trade. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2018-07-16 17:29 |
| #20 If the demand was the same, why would Russia need to sell oil at a discount? |
| Posted by: Raj 2018-07-16 17:28 |
| #19 Not that it would happen anyway but the Russians would have to sell their oil to someone else. And the demand would be the same. So someone gets Russian oil with a discount and Germany buys elsewhere. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2018-07-16 17:23 |
| #18 German importers could simply buy it elsewhere on the world market. Really? Even though all of the oil produced are already sold under contracts to other buyers? How long would Germany have to wait in order to get an oil contract delivered? My guess is years, unless they are willing to outbid for an expiring existing contract. Not as simple as you seems to think it is. |
| Posted by: Seeking Cure For Ignorance 2018-07-16 17:13 |
| #17 Oil is a fungible commodity. Russia is currently the most important supplier for Germany, but only one of 23 different countries exporting oil to Germany. There are international stock exchanges for oil, which is often transported by ship. German importers could simply buy it elsewhere on the world market. No dependency at all. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2018-07-16 15:36 |
| #16 Can EC sell Europe to 'Merica? Will Merkel look well in a burka? Folks, tune in tomorrow, Come joy or come sorrow... And fire up the ol' Buna-Werke! |
| Posted by: Zenobia Floger6220 2018-07-16 14:09 |
| #15 Even if the numbers aren't 100%, the facts are the same. Germany is super dependent on Russian energy sources, doesn't fund NATO well and has let their military slide to the point that it couldn't repel several grumpy cub scout troops. England doesn't have much of a navy anymore as they had to mothball a lot of it to pay for their new carrier that still isn't operational. The French would most likely be French and not really provide much support. Italy is too broke to help. Turkey is now hostile to the west. Greece ain't doin' shit as it is pointing its guns at the Turks. NATO is like a faberge egg. Looks pretty, but the shell is weak and there is nothing inside to hold it together. Putin is well aware of this and Trump has publicly called out the lie that was being put forth by the "elite". That right there is the military situation in Europe. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2018-07-16 09:29 |
| #14 Germany imports about 40% of its gas from Russia, but gas only accounts for about 20% of German energy consumption. You forgot 40% of German oil imports are from Russia. Oil accounts for 33% of total German energy consumption but near zero production. That means over 20% of total German energy supplies are from Russia. Even more of the on-demand energy consumption if solar, wind and decommissioning nuclear power plants are removed. That's quite the pretty pfennig Germans pay to Russia every year. Probably enough to warm Vlad's cold heart. |
| Posted by: Thraper Barnsmell7239 2018-07-16 09:14 |
| #13 Just saying. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2018-07-16 08:19 |
| #12 Well gas has to be used to replace the energy gaps caused by the intermittent production from wind. Wind (and solar) is also a naked subsidy to landowners where they are placed. But that's a different story. Germany tends to have more sensible land prices so it's a bad precedent to start down that road. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2018-07-16 05:41 |
| #11 Why failed? |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2018-07-16 05:37 |
| #10 Germany would really have to wind back it's failed experiment with windmills. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2018-07-16 04:35 |
| #9 EC - Asia Times is a Hong Kong news operation. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2018-07-16 02:31 |
| #8 Let's see, during P.Trump's visit Charlie had to wash his car and Willie was washing his horse, so NO. |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2018-07-16 02:19 |
| #7 And no, Germany isn't 70% dependent on Russian gas. They are journalists, EC. Not to be trusted with numbers, firearms or sharp objects. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2018-07-16 01:32 |
| #6 |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2018-07-16 01:29 |
| #5 Let us know when you can successfully repel Russian soccer hooligans, then we can talk. Baby steps! |
| Posted by: Raj 2018-07-16 00:56 |
| #4 But if Russia invades a NATO country there is no doubt that Germany would honor Article 5. Yup - can't wait for that modern German air support! |
| Posted by: Raj 2018-07-16 00:53 |
| #3 After that, enough alternatives could be found. Build some more |
| Posted by: Raj 2018-07-16 00:48 |
| #2 There are currently German NATO troops stationed in Lithuania. And no, Germany isn't 70% dependent on Russian gas. Germany imports about 40% of its gas from Russia, but gas only accounts for about 20% of German energy consumption. Germany can certainly not be put out of business by only the turn of a gas valve by the Russians. Actually Germany could live with a total Russian gas embargo of currently 5 months without feeling any pain. And yes, even in winter. After that, enough alternatives could be found. Russia would be a lot more affected by a gas embargo. It depends a lot more on trade with Germany than the other way round. Btw I don't think that Russia would invade the Baltic countries. It would once again be on fiercely hostile territory and lose EU trade. Poland? Even less. Russia has a long term strategy of destabilizing the EU and NATO. But if Russia invades a NATO country there is no doubt that Germany would honor Article 5. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2018-07-16 00:44 |
| #1 But first, would Europeans? |
| Posted by: Vinegar Hupolumble8430 2018-07-16 00:10 |
