By relying on Russia for energy, and taking actions such as Germany having a plan to decommission all nuclear power plants, and agreeing to Nordstream 2, they are (1) giving Russia money to build their military, and (2) become dependent on not being cut off gas in the middle of winter
This seems like a strategic miscalculation of epic proportions
Anyone care to defend Germany’s actions on this front?
In today’s (Sunday 27 February 2022) special session of the German parliament the Chancellor has announced that the previous policy towards Russia has failed. Germany is doing a 180 on its foreign/military policy and it is generally assumed that the pipelines will shortly be cut off from the other end. It is now assumed we weill make it through this winter barring an extraordinary cold spell.
By implication, yes. We so wanted to be friends with a country that we did terrible wrong to, and the people of which we like.
I don’t consider the general idea unreasonable. It’s not so much about making “friends” as it is getting economies so intertwined that going to war exacts a large economic cost.
The part that seems foolish is shutting down nuclear power plants without making more or having some other contingency plan in place. You should have reserved to keep everything going in case the above plan fails.
The conceit is pretty much that - losing Germany as a customer hurts Russia more than it hurts Germany. In the world of economic power and entanglement as the levers of foreign policy this was predicated to place limits on its utility as a weapon against them, and give them more power to use it as a tool to keep Russia playing by sets of rules.
Meanwhile Germany has no energy shortage. It still has to solve issues of energy volatility however. Keeping its grid balanced as it gets shoved to even higher levels of reliance on renewables is the tricky thing.
Energy storage was already a hot thing in Germany. This will ramp it up even faster!
Western Europe has been buying Russian Natural Gas since the 1960s. It has weathered all kinds of Cold War crises over the decades. Indeed, it still flows right now, in the middle of war in the Ukraine, where many of the pipelines are located. There are extensive gas networks that were supplied by Russia in all the former Soviet states. Russian gas is sold to a lot of countries in Europe, not just Germany. Natural Gas is easily stored and it is not as if when it get switch off, the heating goes off and the lights go out. Russia gets substantial income from Gas and Oil sales. If it stopped, its economy would go into an instant tailspin. Dependence on Russian gas is a relatively new. Until recently the the UK and Dutch gas fields provided much of the requirement. Norway is currently a large supplier. Natural Gas can also be supplied by Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) tankers at port terminals. The extensive natural gas pipeline network can be made to flow in the opposite direction to supply dependent states from LNG terminals and the Norwegian pipelines. Natural Gas demand it expected to go down as renewables increase. There are some huge investments in wind farms in the North Sea and the Baltic expected to come on stream in the next years. Germany has invested a lot in a HVDC electricity grid to move that power across the country.
Now what Germany, and every other country world did not see coming is Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and its potential economic isolation from much of the world. It was assumed that cutting off the gas pipelines would be a something that would only happen in a WW3 scenario. Russia is one of the worlds major Oil and Gas producers. They have a huge asset that provides a very steady and reliable income and control over that income is the basis of political power. Switching off that money supply is probably the quickest way to change the political leadership.
From time to time, the advanced economies go through an energy crisis. If the pipelines from Russia suddenly get switched off, there will be such a crisis and there may be a difficult few years. But that would be nothing compared to the effect it would have on the Russian economy and the political turmoil it would create.
The German post war policy of economic engagement with its European neighbours to provide political stability built on long term trade links has proved to be very sound in the decades since WW2. In the Western Europe, with France, it built the European Union that was extended to include the former Sovet states. In the East, it bought Oil and Gas from Russia and this has been to their mutual benefit.
Long term, the idea is to move from Coal and Nukes via Natural Gas to an energy policy based on electricity from renewable sources. Many countries have the same objective. Germany and Poland are particularly dependent on highly polluting coal power stations. They have a long way to go.
There may be a ‘little local difficulty’ with some excitement in Russia at the moment. But, if WW3 does not start, it will settle down after a while. There is no way in which big energy infrastructure projects can be implemented quickly, much though some may wish it were so. Everything is measured in time spans of five years or more.
Most countries have contingency plans, should there be an energy crisis. I am sure there has been a flurry of activity over the past few months of tension. Politicians all know, that if the the lights go out because there is no power, their tenure in office is likely to be shorter that they would have hoped.
They’ll get through this winter and be ready by next winter. Maybe that will include not closing some nuclear plants this year after all. Maybe a combination of other options. But they can and will pivot quickly with much less pain to them than to Russia.
To the OP, how much strategic foresight is being applied to the US’ reliance on Chinese manufacturing?
The world is not simple. We all buy and sell from each other. We all have exposures to world events in certain areas. It’s very simple for an energy rich country like the US to wag its fingers at Germany. But you shouldn’t feel too smug.
What’s amazing is how quickly Europe admitted that they have been complacent regarding Russia and European security and energy policies. They quickly acknowledged as much and took steps to correct it.
In the 90s, the Clinton administration was pushing Europe to diversify its energy sources so that it was not overly dependent on Russia.
The dramatic changes in policy with regard to Russia across Europe and the rest of the world is in no small part due to the leadership shown by the president of Ukraine.
Zelenskyy is quite remarkable. In his impassioned speeches and appeals to political leaders for help to defend his country from invasion by the Russian army he has really touched a nerve. Putin and his spokesmen have been quite the opposite. Full of grim pronouncements and threats to destroy Ukraine unless they capitulate.
It is as if decades of careful diplomacy and trade deals between Russia and Europe have quite suddenly been torn up. No politician who had previously had a constructive dialogue with Putin seems to ha e been able to make him see reason. French president Macron tried very hard, even Orban of Hungary failed. Something is very wrong with Putin. He is damaging Russia and its place in the world in pursuit of his deluded ideas about Ukraine and the Russian national identity.
This is the head of state of a nuclear superpower who seems to have gone off the rails and is threatening invasion first of Ukraine…then who will be next?
There is palpable fear across the parts of Europe closest to Russia. They are haunted by bad memories of what the Soviets did in the past and that nightmare seems to be coming to life.
People just want to live in a normal country and get on with their lives. Not least the Russians themselves who are now being led by a megalomaniac with an army possessing huge firepower that is being used to terrorise their Ukrainian neighbour.
No-one predicted this, the world is in shock and united in its condemnation of this madness. Zelenskyy is providing a vivid account of the challenges any of Russia neighbours may suddenly face. So they are now preparing to defend themselves and quickly creating a united front. The message is that if Ukraine falls to Russia, it won’t end there.
how much strategic foresight is being applied to the US’ reliance on Chinese manufacturing?
I’m not letting the US ‘off the hook’ for this one. Having most manufacturing outsourced to China is a strategic blunder.
Not just China, but also Taiwan. Having such a high percentage of the world’s chips produced by companies such as TSMC in Taiwan, which we know has an uncertain future given China’s widely publicized views on the matter, is strategic folly.
Bringing back at least a minimum viable level of manufacturing to the US (so that the economy can survive in case of future problems with China & Taiwan) is a matter of national security. I don’t know how the leaders of the US don’t see this. (Maybe they do see it, and can’t do much about it?)
As far as chips go …
In terms of globalization and much manufacturing being in China - the argument usually goes that the manufacturer is even more reliant on the buyer than the other way around. I think reality is even more complicated. Chains of reliance and dependencies go back and forth with China.
The ship for that argument sailed the moment Russia invaded Ukraine (not that I bought the argument even before this invasion)
First off, China ain’t Russia. Russia has been attempting to build a fortress economy, knowing that they were losing and would continue to lose in the game of influence by economic levers, preparing to do this. China OTOH is entangled economically across the globe.
Second is that the outcome of Russia’s action remains to be seen. They have attacked the West militarily (and finding it hard going against mismatched Ukraine). The West is responding with a coordinated counterstrike economically that is quite severe. Odds are that counterstrike is going to end up more effective than military engagement would be.