Interestingly when Trump was president he invoked a NATO principle regarding energy or some rule and put a block on the Russian pipeline project into Germany. His argument is hmm, the USA has millions of equipment and personnel in Germany in NATO protecting Western Europe from "Russia" yet Germany, and other Western Countries are working with "Russia" to build a pipeline for Russian Oil and Gas. The USA under Trump was a net exporter of Oil, Gas and Natural Gas so the logical question is why the hell were the US's "NATO" allies not buying this from the USA rather than "Russia". You know who was against the Russian pipeline into Western Europe. Trump, Poland and Ukraine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????? You think with an asset like that now providing a direct supply line for Russian oil and gas into Western Europe might have something to do with Putin's hard "**" for Ukraine?
Germany has sent the Ukraine about 5,000 helmets. Hey we have the Nord 2 pipeline that will help our energy supply so Ukraine, oh well. Biden's response on the Nord 2 pipeline was I was against it while I was not president but now that I am and it is almost complete, I am not going to do anything. Now of course, I am aware of the brutal combat between Germans and Russian troops in WW2 and Germany's sensibility to being seen as being provocative with Russia.
Trump put sanctions on any country helped complete the project. So Ukraine unfortunately is in a pickle. Currently about 1/3 of European Oil and Gas is supplied by Russia, and Ukraine is part of the supply chain of that Oil and Gas. With NORD2, Ukraine is out the loop as that Oil will now go from Russia straight to Lubmin Germany. So NORD2 is likely going to happen and Europe will be even more dependent on Russia for Oil and GAS. If NORD2 is not allowed, then Ukraine unfortunately is going be a flash point given its importance in the land based supply chain for Russian Oil and Gas, which account for 40% or so of Russia's Government Revenues.
So Trump was 100% correct. NATO was designed to stop the Communist Soviet Union. It is obsolete. Why the hell is the USA spending the money we are with troops stationed in Europe to defend it against Russia and the Europeans, Germany chief among them, along with the other countries in the Baltic Sea (Sweden) and Belgium and UK (Nord 2 will eventually link up with UK) are working with the Russians to help them become the largest supplier of Oil and Gas to them. The whole thing makes no F-ing sense.
NATO needs to be re-configured to deal with the real modern threats, China. No more invasions in the Middle East either, if the Sunnis and Shia want to fight each other, let them. No American kid should ever die in these neocon regime change wars there again either. And if any of my fellow American citizens here thinks I am wrong, ask yourself this question, would you want your son, brother, nephew, 1st cousin etc do die there?
I can't disagree with your facts. Europe mouths platitudes about not letting authoritarianism prevail while making itself dependent on Russia for its energy needs. When the two come into conflict, as indeed they will, who really thinks they'll put their energy needs in peril?
Also, NATO was meant to protect Europe from Russian aggression. That's why all those U.S. troops and missiles are in Germany. Now, Germany and all the other countries buying their energy production means they're in effect getting into bed with them.
Should the U.S. say to hell with you and pull its troops out? I certainly see the appeal and I would bet it's extremely popular in the U.S. Let them see what paying for their own defense does to the Euro and their standard of living.
Would they, however, actually arm themselves in order to resist Russian totalitarianism? I'm not sanguine about the chances.
Europe couldn't even put an end to the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans without the U.S. They would never have thrown off Nazism without the U.S. invasion. Great Britain is the only stalwart among them and they were extremely close to being taken over.
Plus, even if they're willing to spend the money to take over their own defense, what happens when Putin turns off the tap? How do you defend against that?
I've read about the disasters of foreign policy in Europe virtually all my life, but this shortsightedness is breathtaking in its scope.
Putin, on the other hand, running what is basically a third world country, is playing a masterful two pronged strategy. One, make Western Europe dependent on Russia, and two, take over Ukraine to stop the encroachment of NATO on Russian borders.
Western Europe, and the U.S. under Biden, will do absolutely nothing to stop it, just as they did nothing to stop the Germans in Austria or Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain, that doofus, thought he had appeased the tiger and brought "peace in our time". He couldn't understand, as so many people today don't understand, that there is no appeasing tigers, or totalitarian states. It is in their nature to take. In addition to all sorts of other reasons (Russia, notoriously inefficient in agricultural production and industrial production both, just looted all the more efficient Eastern Bloc countries) totalitarian states never feel secure unless they take over other states.
So, do we say "a pox on all your houses", and retreat to a "fortress America"? As I said, I certainly see the appeal, but is it doable? Is it safe? Retreat is always a sign of weakness, and you can so easily be encircled and "starved" out. Also, how to protect ourselves if Russia were to take over Western Europe and there were Russian missiles on the Atlantic? Europe made fun of the "shield" but perhaps that's indeed what we would need. What about concerted cyber attacks from Russia and China? Is whoever is actually governing this country making plans to address these threats?
I'm not hopeful.
