Germany and Nato, revisited

by on June 15, 2017 at 1:32 pm in Current Affairs, Uncategorized | Permalink

I’ve argued before that much of the collapse of Nato is in fact due to Germany, and not Trump.  There is now an update:

Germany and Austria have castigated new American sanctions on Russia that target Moscow’s controversial Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline to Europe, describing them as an illegal threat to EU energy security.

Sending a strong message to Moscow, the US Senate on Wednesday voted 97-2 to approve measures that toughen existing sanctions on Moscow and create new restrictions that target companies which support Russian “energy export pipelines”.

In a joint statement on Thursday, Berlin and Vienna said the amendment heralded a “new and very negative quality in European-American relations”.

The Senate move threatens to break a delicate transatlantic consensus on Russia sanctions orchestrated by Chancellor Angela Merkel, which has until now excluded Russia’s export pipelines precisely because they involved key German interests.

Here is the FT article.  How would America have reacted to Russia’s election tampering back say in 1966?  How might Germany have gone along with that response?  How willing was Germany back then to accept such a high percentage of its energy supplies from Russia/USSR?

1 Skeptic June 15, 2017 at 1:48 pm

Tyler, please stop conflating:
1) USSR and Russia
2) in Qatar context, Iran and al-Qaeda

2 Brian Donohue June 15, 2017 at 1:50 pm

What is wrong with America? This Russia stuff is nonsense. Grow up, the era of “gentlemen don’t read each other’s mail” is long past, as Merkel well knows.

3 The Other Jim June 15, 2017 at 1:54 pm

> How would America have reacted to Russia’s election tampering back say in 1966?

What tampering, exactly, are you talking about?

4 Boonton June 15, 2017 at 1:58 pm

The party that served as tool for Russia would have had to choose between doing an internal witch hunt to prove they purged themselves of the alien influence or would itself end as a serious political party.

5 Harun June 16, 2017 at 11:17 am

The Democrats had Obama offices with Che and Cuba flags.

When does the purge begin?

6 Harun June 16, 2017 at 11:24 am

And since Clinton and Gore took money from the Chinese…can you explain why they didn’t purge themselves from their party?

Instead Clan Clinton intensified its taking of money from foreigners.

The norm seems to have been set.

7 TMC June 18, 2017 at 6:52 pm

Is that the ‘more lattitude’ I’ve heard about?

8 Vangel Vesovski June 18, 2017 at 9:15 pm

“how will improved nat gas supplies in Germany impact climate change? will it reduce coal’s importance in the electricity mix, diesel’s among transport fuels?”

The electricity mix in Germany or globally will have no impact on climate change. Coal is still the solution for electricity generation for most of the world and the sooner that people learned about the economics or the science the better off that we will be.

9 EverExtruder June 15, 2017 at 2:09 pm

Exactly. Also…America? Election Tampering? 1966? What?

10 Horhe June 17, 2017 at 7:14 pm

In 1964, way before Watergate, LBJ used federal agencies to spy on the Goldwater campaign for tactical reasons.

11 Dick the Butcher June 15, 2017 at 2:48 pm

I think, since the collapse of the USSR and opening of Kremlin Archives, it was learned that the USSR spent $2 billion (not sure if inflation adjusted) on influencing internal US politics, the so-called peace movement, etc. All of it went to liberals and democrats.

We know that Teddy Kennedy (martyr and saint Mary Jo Kopechne of Chappaquiddick saved America from a second President Kennedy) sent a letter to the Kremlin asking for assistance in obtaining the nomination for the presidency. We know that Hillary sold Russia 20% of the US uranium stockpile and the Clinton Foundation concomitantly received several millions of dollars from Russia proxies. ETC.

The presidential election years were 1968 and 1972.

In November 1972, President Nixon won a yuge, landslide re-election victory over McGovern with almost 18 million more popular votes (46.7 million votes to 28.9 million), and 503 more Electoral votes (520 electoral votes against 17 for McGovern).

Why did the “Plumbers” break into, and place two bugs, the Watergate DNC HQ?

The whole “collusion” thing was made up immediately after the election to cover up Crooked Hillary’s humiliating defeat. The irony, which is missed by idiot liberals (redundant), is that it’s only high crimes and misdemeanors if you can fake evidence that a Republican did it.

12 Boonton June 15, 2017 at 3:28 pm

We know that Teddy Kennedy (martyr and saint Mary Jo Kopechne of Chappaquiddick saved America from a second President Kennedy) sent a letter to the Kremlin asking for assistance in obtaining the nomination for the presidency

Please cite the text of this letter.

13 Rich Berger June 15, 2017 at 3:49 pm

A little different than Dick’s claim (perhaps there is more) but related:

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/kgb-letter-details-kennedy-offer-to-ussr

14 Boonton June 16, 2017 at 10:10 am

I’m not reading there any request from Kennedy to the USSR to either support him in an election or act against Reagan. I see Kennedy essentially saying he is planning to tour various European countries talking to leaders publically there and would like the USSR to invite him to speak with leaders there. That would hardly be unusual for a Senator on the Foreign Relations Committee (they travel all the time to speak with foreign leaders). It also wouldn’t be manipulation of an election. In 1984 you as a voter would have turned on your TV and saw Ted Kennedy speaking with a Soviet official about nuclear disarmament and you would have either been impressed and voted for him against Reagan or unimpressed and voted for Reagan.

It would have been impressive if Dick had a letter asking the Soviets to break into Reagan’s campaign headquarters and steal all the memos (since no one had email back then). That would normally be a very big thing that the Republican Party could have used as a ‘gotcha’……except now event hat would be unimpressive as Trump did it on TV.

15 Boonton June 16, 2017 at 10:13 am

So here’s three cheers for defining deviancy down!

16 Austrian June 17, 2017 at 6:53 pm

Explanation here.

17 chuck martel June 15, 2017 at 5:53 pm

What’s been the cumulative budget of Radio Free Europe?

18 Jan June 16, 2017 at 4:56 am

Oh, wow. You think this investigation is only about whether Trump colluded with Russia (despite his campaign members having multiple secret meetings with Russia and Russian proxies and lying about it repeatedly)? It’s about Russia hacking our election. Hands up if you think there’s any chance Mueller *doesn’t* find various laws broken by Trump and his sycophants. Didn’t think so.

19 Harun June 16, 2017 at 11:22 am

Hacking the DNC is much more serious than hacking OPM.

20 Ricardo June 16, 2017 at 12:59 pm

“Why did the “Plumbers” break into, and place two bugs, the Watergate DNC HQ?”

They didn’t, the Committee to Re-elect the President did. Membership in the two groups did overlap a bit but the distinction is important because 1) it clarifies the fact that the Watergate break-in was an explicitly partisan operation and 2) Nixon probably did not personally sign off on it.

As to why CRP tried to bug the DNC, Scientology spends lots of resources placing its opponents under surveillance in hopes that it will find something compromising with which it could mount a public smear campaign or use to engage in blackmail. CRP probably operated under the same assumption.

21 Erika June 15, 2017 at 5:09 pm

It truly is bizarre to refer to what the Russians are accused of doing as “tampering.”

If Putin had targeted a Republican, he’d win a Pulitzer for investigative reporting.

22 carlospln June 15, 2017 at 5:22 pm

Reds under the bed!

Grow up, TC.

You make yourself look like an idiot.

23 anon June 15, 2017 at 6:32 pm

Hillary said the Russkies spent big bucks to make her look bad.

There are lots of folks who would say she did that to herself for free.

24 josh June 16, 2017 at 12:34 pm

They (maybe?) posted some emails on the internet that very few people cared about or saw and probably put up some ads on facebook.

25 Todd K June 15, 2017 at 2:11 pm

TC: “How willing was Germany back then to accept such a high percentage of its energy supplies from Russia/USSR?”

It depends on how rational the German government was in 1966. If rational, they would have known that when Soviet oil or gas declines they can replace it with another source outside from outside the Soviet Union. I’m not sure why Cowen thinks like most international relations academics and pundits rather than economists who remember that their are well functioning energy markets.

26 Borjigid June 15, 2017 at 2:32 pm

Yeah, the frickin’ USSR was just another energy supplier, a fully paid up member of the capitalist economy, indistinguishable from Exxon, really.

There still isn’t a functioning European energy market today, much less in 1966.

27 Todd K June 15, 2017 at 3:34 pm

Huh? Say the Soviets cut off West Germany in 1966. You are really saying they could not make up that percentage from sources in other countries. Also, it isn’t as if Western Germany wouldn’t have oil or gas; prices would rise until new supplies come in.

“There still isn’t a functioning European energy market today…” In what way? There are Europeans today who aren’t getting all the energy the need as long as they are willing to pay the market price?

28 Borjigid June 15, 2017 at 6:20 pm

Natural gas isn’t fungible in the way you’re assuming. It is mostly moved via pipeline or LNG tankers & terminals. Both have fixed capacity and take years to build. So gas in Canada isn’t really a good substitute for gas in the USSR. One isn’t connected to Germany via pipeline, the other is. I don’t think there were any pipelines connecting Germany to other natural gas producers at the time.

Oil is more fungible, but it still wouldn’t be a great situation. At the time, oil was mostly sold on long term contracts; the spot market didn’t take off for another decade or so. So it would be difficult to find available oil, and would probably require entering into a long term contract at the moment of maximum leverage for the supplier. And of course you would need to have spare capacity at the German oil import terminals.

The USSR, being a highly ideological communist state rather than a market-based profit-maximizing corporation might be less interested in providing a steady supply of petroleum than in achieving some political goal. This might lead to shutting off gas for the winter and then turning it on again in the spring to render any adaptations unprofitable.

29 Todd K June 15, 2017 at 7:24 pm

This is for the present: 23% of Germany’s primary energy use is from natural gas. 90% is imported so down to about 21% to 22%. Of that, 39% comes from Russia, so they can cut off just 8% to 9% of Germany’s natural gas. Norway, the UK, the Netherlands, Denmark provide the other 61% of imported gas.

Germany can easily get by with 8% less natural gas as prices would likely increase and at the margin some consumers would demand less. Why couldn’t Norway, the Netherlands, etc supply more gas to Germany?

This is Russia’s Big Energy Weapon that Cowen sometimes brings up?

30 Borjigid June 15, 2017 at 8:38 pm

Can you clarify your numbers? I think your second paragraph should read “Germany can easily get by with 8% less energy”, not ‘natural gas’.

(23% natural gas usage, of which 90% imported, of which 39% from Russia would mean that 8% of Germany’s total energy use comes from imported Russian natural gas).

Yes, losing 8% of your total energy supply would be very bad. As you say, to some extent it is possible to compensate from other sources, but it would still be bad. There are a lot more gas pipelines connecting Germany to the UK, Netherlands, Norway, etc than there were in the 60’s, but I don’t know if there is sufficient capacity to make the transition as easy as you describe. Gas also fills some roles, like home heating, that other energy sources are poorly suited for.

I would say that the Germans would lose significantly more from a gas cutoff than the Russians would under any plausible sanctions regime. I think that would be an energy weapon worth being wary of.

31 carlospln June 16, 2017 at 1:32 am

For Christ’s sake you idiot, the USSR imploded in 1991, a quarter century ago.

32 Todd K June 16, 2017 at 9:24 am

At no time would there be a drop in natural gas consumption by anything close 8% as reserves would be used immediately. At the same time there could be a price increase that discourages some consumption all while more gas could come from the UK, the Netherlands and Norway. Far from Germans being in “dire straights”, they wouldn’t even notice apart from a possible price increase.

So, no gas weapon.

33 Daniel Weber June 15, 2017 at 3:31 pm

Energy is fungible in the long term, but it can take time to switch, and you need to keep the lights on every day to avoid the mob pulling you from your house and killing you to death.

Gas lines are very fixed. You cannot just reposition it to get gas from Africa.

This problem is surely exacerbated by turning off all the nuke plants. Wait, which narrative am I pushing this time? I can’t keep them straight.

34 Todd K June 15, 2017 at 3:50 pm

They are not that fixed. You *can* get it from Africa even if it takes more time. At the same time all that would happen is that the price of gas would go up for a fairly short period of time.

Obviously some would find it is not worth it to pay the price to keep the lights on every day. Some would find it would no longer be worth it to keep running a business, etc.

Nukes have little to do with this. Germany’s electricity mix in 2013:

Coal 45%, Nuclear 15%, Gas 10%, Wind 7%, Biomass 6%, Solar 5%, Hydro 3%.

Now if Russia blocked Germany’s sunshine and stopped the wind from blowing…

35 JWatts June 15, 2017 at 5:12 pm

If the natural gas were shut off during the winter, a substantial amount of the population would be in fairly dire straights.

“Nukes have little to do with this. Germany’s electricity mix in 2013:

Coal 45%, Nuclear 15%, Gas 10%, Wind 7%, Biomass 6%, Solar 5%, Hydro 3%.

Now if Russia blocked Germany’s sunshine and stopped the wind from blowing…”

Did you read your own numbers? Nuclear is higher than both Wind and Solar combined.

36 prior_test2 June 16, 2017 at 1:07 am

‘If the natural gas were shut off during the winter, a substantial amount of the population would be in fairly dire straights.’

A winter later, that is – Germany stores a lot of natural gas.

‘Germany has the largest natural gas storage capacity in the EU and the fourth largest in the world, the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy pointed out in its latest newsletter on the German Energiewende. Almost 24 billion cubic metres of natural gas can be stored to balance supply and demand.

Only the United States, Russia and the Ukraine have more storage capacity than Germany that ranks ahead of Italy and France in the EU. Capacity is still to be expanded in the coming years. On 31 December 2013 German natural gas storage capacity amounted to 23,800 million cubic metres, an increase of 5%. 51 underground storage facilities were in operation.

Natural gas storage facilities could not only balance seasonal fluctuations of demand, but played an important role for the security of supply, BMWi said. Theoretically, the total German gas storage capacity could provide a quarter of the annual demand of approximately 95 billion cubic metres, on average they could fully supply the country for 80 days. The exact duration depends on the actual storage filling levels. Presently German gas storage sites are reported as being filled to an average of 90%.’ http://www.germanenergyblog.de/?p=16962

37 Alistair June 16, 2017 at 5:17 am

So, a 40% reduction in supplies could be met by stockpiles for about half a year? Well, it’s a lot better than nothing, but not enough to build new pipelines…but I guess you could swap the gas to the domestic market. It’s a little awkward as you need a fair number of gas power plants to buffer the wind/solar variance.

38 prior_test2 June 16, 2017 at 9:17 am

That is 80 days at full use – one can reasonably assume that if Russia was to cut off the gas, appropriate conservation measures would be used.

I did not feel it necessary to point out that Germany has lots and lots of coal, and that pretty much none of the older lignite coal plants have actually been dismantled yet. Replacing natural gas with Germany’s low quality and very dirty coal is not a real problem. It isn’t as if the Germans aren’t aware of their dependence on importing gas and oil.

39 Alistair June 16, 2017 at 1:05 pm

Yes, I suspected the coal was a solid fall-back in extremis. They’re not really vulnerable then.

40 Dick King June 15, 2017 at 6:59 pm

So nuclear is 15% and solar + wind is 12%, but nuclear “has little to do with this “?

Got it.

-dk

41 Todd K June 15, 2017 at 7:06 pm

Not one German would be in “dire straights”.

This is just for electricity but gas contributes only 10% to Germany’s electricity. Only part of that gas is from Russia. Russia can’t cut off coal, right? So in the short term, Russia could affect maybe 5% of Germany’s electricity output before that is quickly shifted. The world is not static – -that is how political scientists and pundits think for some reason I can’t understand.

The 15% applies to nuclear power today as well. The Russians can’t shut that down so what is your point?

42 Laurent Grain June 15, 2017 at 3:00 pm

The draft bill is a textbook example of US excess by mixing US business interests (with the intent of replacing Russian gas on the European market with American LNG) with the extraterritorial reach of US law. Both, the support of US business interests by legal means and the often extraterritorial nature of US law are rather short-sighted. Not that there wouldn’t be enough historical and psychological reasoning for such acting (the pioneers’ ‘do or die’ in a harsh environment, the lack of a social safety net in the US or a debt-fueled economic model that relies on quick fixes come to mind). To curb authoritarian regimes, however, the US and Europe better work together, as there aren’t that many free democracies left to build a future with.

Not least, as Tyler correctly points out, the only (yet decisive) field where Europe depends on the US is (nuclear) defense. Once NATO has been replaced by a European nuclear triad, the US could see its soft power vanished, the country as seen from Europe reduced to a large market of consumers with the well-known resulting dependencies (as is already the case in its relations to China).

Let’s hope that the State Department takes the longer view.

43 A Definite Beta Guy June 16, 2017 at 9:27 am

Yeaaaaaaa, there’s a lot Europe depends on that isn’t a nuclear triad. The conventional attack on Libya, for instance, started off with a US cruise missile attack, because Europe doesn’t just have 3,000+ tomahawk missiles sitting around, let alone the recon or stealth abilities of the US military. They can’t even maintain a sustained air attack in Libya or, say, Syria, because they lack the naval aviation and aerial refueling to do it. I mean, they could, but then they would be sacrificing military readiness somewhere else.

That’s to say nothing of power projection on the other side of the planet, which is increasingly an issue as nations like Saudi Arabia, China, and India arm like crazy. A lot of Western technological edge is created by the US anyways, so it’s not like Europe sans-America is going to walk over China and India like it did in the 1800s, particularly if the US just says “f it” and starts selling technology to non-allies, too. Maybe instead of the Royal Air Force getting free US satellite intelligence and advanced Sidewinder missiles in the 80s, we give Argentina a nuclear attack sub and a few F-15s and see how fast Her Majesty’s Royal Joke gets obliterated.

44 GoneWithTheWind June 15, 2017 at 3:02 pm

I thought Germany became energy independent with their sustainable wind and solar power. Why would they need to become dependent on Russia for NG? No matter I guess it’s not as though Russia would ever use that NG as a political tool. LOL

45 Alain June 15, 2017 at 4:02 pm

Come on Greens, turn off that natural gas! Turn off those nukes! Live via your renewable energy! Do it! Now! Kumbaya !

Mother Earth is dying! Do your part!

46 inertial June 15, 2017 at 3:47 pm

Natural gas is used as a political tool not by Russia but by the US government. This is precisely what Germany is unhappy about.

47 GoneWithTheWind June 15, 2017 at 10:44 pm

How?

I am opposed to selling American NG or oil offshore but even so I fail to see how it is used as a political tool by the U.S.

48 Alistair June 16, 2017 at 5:19 am

Do you object to selling your food or manufactures offshore? You might not have enough for domestic consumers?

Just wondering.

49 Harun June 16, 2017 at 11:27 am

I *member when German prime ministers retired and took up lucrative positions with Russian nat gas pipeline consortiums.

Anyone consider that?

Sen. Daschle is going to consider his post-politics career. Why wouldn’t Merkel?

50 Rich Berger June 15, 2017 at 3:51 pm

So Merkel is a snake. But we knew that.

51 Peter Akuleyev June 15, 2017 at 4:15 pm

“How might Germany have gone along with that response? How willing was Germany back then to accept such a high percentage of its energy supplies from Russia/USSR?”

There were two Germanies in 1966, and the one in the East arguably had the better historical claim to being the successor to the German state established in 1871. In any case the German Democratic Republic would have had no problem accepting a high percentage of its energy supplies from the USSR:

Most of the German business class hates the sanctions and has no sympathy with Ukraine. Trump is the perfect foil for them. They can now cozy up to the Russians without shame, but still blame the Americans for selling out Eastern Europe.

52 prior_test2 June 16, 2017 at 1:10 am

Properly cynical appreciation of how mercantilist German industrialists continue to feel that Russia is a wonderful market to sell to. As the German expression goes ‘money doesn’t stink,’ regardless of who is holding it and where it came from.

53 M June 15, 2017 at 5:56 pm

>> How would America have reacted to Russia’s election tampering back say in 1966?

Devil’s advocate response (that I half belief is plausible): Accepting that there was tampering today (which is dubious), probably not very well, but there are reasons for that.

The US is much more powerful relative to today Russia than the USSR. Today’s Russia is also not to anything like the same extent a force which defines itself as against the American system by moral choice. Being anti-USSR is different from being anti-Russian Federation. (A stupidity of the American Left being to pick the one of these stances as deserving more opprobrium that is exactly the opposite to any kind of commonplace political sense).

The US at the time also did not have the openness in the information system that it does today. In the sphere of the time, “tampering” would require something quite different. If the US Democratic Party want to go back to that, I don’t imagine it will necessarily work out like they imagine.

54 Alex from Germany June 15, 2017 at 6:10 pm

Huh?

Tyler, instead of asking this suggestive question about election-tampering (as if these topics are related) why not ask what the US would have done if Western Europe wanted to gain access to Soviet Pipelines in the 1960s?

Weird that you don’t ask, since that’s exactly what Europe did back then and it’s well documented what the US did about that back then as well:

” The US Senate held a series of secret hearings on the topic in July 1962 […] This tension between the United States and its European allies grew appreciably during the construction of the Druzhba pipeline. In 1962, three West German firms signed contracts to supply an estimated 163,000 tonnes of large-diameter pipe to the Soviet Union, a deal valued at $28 million. ”

In this case I quote the German contemporary comedian Nuhr: “Wenn man keine Ahnung hat: Einfach mal Fresse halten”

55 chuck martel June 15, 2017 at 6:35 pm

How does “Sending a strong message to Moscow, the US Senate on Wednesday voted 97-2 to approve measures that toughen existing sanctions on Moscow and create new restrictions that target companies which support Russian “energy export pipelines” lead to “the collapse of Nato”?

56 Cooper June 15, 2017 at 8:25 pm

Is there some kind of US-Russia deal that could be worked out? It’s too late for Trump but some future president could theoretically offer the following:

The US gives Russia: Crimea, eastern Ukraine and shuts up about Assad’s human rights abuses for a while so he can finish consolidating power. We also reduce sanctions on Russian oligarchs.

In exchange the US gets firm commitments from Russia to stop their cyber attacks, stabilize the European energy market and help in the fight against ISIS. We also get access to Russian energy resources for western energy companies and some economic liberalization. More markets for western companies and more trade between Russia and the West.

Both countries could scale down military spending and reduce their nuclear arsenals.

Is there ANY chance of something like the above happening in the next 5 to 15 years? Or are we doomed to continue down the current path of marginalizing Russia forever as a pariah state?

57 Borjigid June 15, 2017 at 10:54 pm

Sounds like the US is giving up a series of concrete concessions in return for unenforceable promises.

Notice that Russia already says they’re not behind any cyberattacks, already claims to be a force for stability in European markets, are already fighting ISIS, and already claim to offer a level playing field (at least until the sanctions a few years ago).

58 The Lunatic June 15, 2017 at 11:20 pm

The US gives Russia: Crimea, eastern Ukraine . . .

. . . and the next week Russia wants all of Ukraine (‘Kiev is the birthplace of Russia’), and NATO out of the Baltics. Then it starts bringing up its legitimate security interests in Finland and Poland, and the Russian population in Transnistria, and access to the Mediterranean through the Bosporus, and pan-Slavism.

59 Alistair June 16, 2017 at 5:32 am

I don’t regard Russia as an existential threat or think they haxxd the elections in any meaningful sense. But they are behaving at least a bit like a pariah state. It’s not so much the authoritarian domestic repression; fine they’re a nasty dictatorship, I get it, we can live with that. But they have a list of actions which are quite a long way outside norms which raise them into the “threat” category.

1. Crimea and eastern Ukraine are not small matters. Annexing territory which you have explicitly promised not to do…
2. Their habit of killing dissidents in western capitals
3. The large number of semi-official cyber attacks from their territory
4. Harassment of small countries on their borders, including Baltics.

I could live with 1 of this list. 4 is pushing it.

60 ChrisA June 16, 2017 at 12:43 am

It really is amazing that the US senate feels able to unilaterally decide on a sanctions regime for the west without consulting the other countries involved. We are truly in a new era. Are there no adults left running things in the US?

61 Harun June 16, 2017 at 11:31 am

The US senate does seem full of themselves in so many ways.

62 Rafael R June 16, 2017 at 1:28 am

I think Germany should make a common market agreement with Russia and the EU, with Russian’s economy fully integrated with the EU, that would contribute a lot to the geopolitical stability of the region. And just let the US whine all they want.

63 argh June 16, 2017 at 4:35 am

(1) Nordstream 2 is arguably more important to East European energy security than Germany’s. Due to its central location Germany has other options for gas imports (Netherlands, Norway, LNG via third countries; there are talks about a German LNG terminal). On the other hand, Germany’s re-exports are a welcome alternative to direct imports from Russia for East European countries.

(2) There might be some truth in what Mr Gabriel & Mr Kern say (see FT article). This is likely more about the US trying to win market share in Europe. While the US is no major LNG player yet, this is likely to change in the near/mid-term future. Thus I really don’t see how this is related to Germany undermining NATO.

64 prior_test2 June 16, 2017 at 9:20 am

‘Nordstream 2 is arguably more important to East European energy security than Germany’s’

No, the Baltic pipelines are all about bypassing Eastern Europe, as the Poles are very well aware.

65 Denis Drew June 16, 2017 at 10:05 am

Ike got in big trouble sending U2s to take pics of Russian strategic installations. We would face no risk sending our fighter planes to shadow Russian fighter bombers hitting civilian targets in Syria — followed up by drone and ground pics — and forwarding such recordings to the Russian people via YouTube, etc.

No need to start WW III shooting down Russian planes to enforce a no-fly zone. Show the Russian people where their tax Rubles are going. Pile on with stories of his friends slipping hundreds of billions out of the country — plus whatever else.

We did our best to keep Yeltsin in. Everybody interferes with everyone else’s campaigns. What we seriously suffer now is an election interference gap.

66 josh June 16, 2017 at 12:38 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halford_Mackinder

Screw this. Can we not do WWIII?

67 prior_test2 June 16, 2017 at 1:01 pm

Subtle – why not simply mention Richard Burt, a former ambassador to Germany? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/15/lobbyist-russian-interests-jeff-sessions-testimony

68 Vangel Vesovski June 17, 2017 at 10:06 pm

“How would America have reacted to Russia’s election tampering back say in 1966?”

What election tampering? I have heard all kinds of claims but ZERO evidence. Your election was tampered with but the culprit was the DNC, which fixed the primaries so that Hillary could win the nomination, which is why Trump was selected by the GOP primary voters and why Trump is now president. The US elections are being destroyed by idiots in both parties that seem to select the worst possible people to be the candidate. And as was noted, there is a very large difference between Russia and the USSR.

69 Dots June 18, 2017 at 2:13 am

how will improved nat gas supplies in Germany impact climate change? will it reduce coal’s importance in the electricity mix, diesel’s among transport fuels?

man I really feel sorry for Poland / Baltics but article 5 to help patron fight sand people isn’t the same as article 5 to fight a superpower

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: