The US sanctions against Nord Stream 2 violate international law according to the EU. The EU Commission and Germany are therefore seeking to prepare countermeasures.

The Current Situation

Nord Stream 2 is a planned gas pipeline running from Russia to Europe via the Baltic Sea. Berlin and the EU have had to deal with new, billion-dollar sanctions from the United States in an attempt to stop the pipeline project Nord Stream 2. Just last week, President Donald Trump made new threats, including punitive tariffs and sanctions against Great Britain, Germany, Spain and France, whose combined trade value adds up to € 2.8 billion per annum.

The White House’s rationale for the renewed threats is their claim that the current WTO proceedings in which it should be clarified whether it was legal for the EU to impose tariffs on goods worth €10 billion from the USA in order to counter US subsidies towards aerospace giant Boeing. Moreover, the latest round of applied pressure from Washington is yet another attempt to provoke action regarding Nord Stream 2. The construction of the pipeline project continues to be controversial, even within Europe and its eastern states.

American Fears of Russian Energy Dominance in Europe

Furthermore, even in an utterly divided Congress in the United States, a majority against Nord Stream 2 had been present ab initio. Moreover, the reason is simple: The US fears that Europe would become too dependent on Russian gas and will therefore hardly be dependent on US gas in the future.

Trump has been criticizing Nord Stream 2 for years and accuses Germany of being militarily protected from Russia, while spending almost nothing on its own defense, but at the same time providing Moscow with high income from gas exports.  In an attempt to make the EU reconsider, Trump already introduced punitive measures against companies involved in the construction of the gas pipeline from Russia to Germany in late 2019. Most recently, US senators had announced an increase in sanctions to stop Nord Stream 2. However, the project has continued and is now nearly concluded, running parallel to the Nord Stream 1 pipeline, which has been transporting gas to Germany since the end of 2011.

Counteracting US Sanctions

The EU Commission and Berlin are now preparing countermeasures against the US sanctions. The latter has been confirmed by a written response by the EU’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, Josep Borrell, to a request from a member of the European Parliament. However, Commission spokesman Eric Mamer did not want to say exactly what was planned on Friday.

Nonetheless, Borrell’s written answer last Thursday states that US sanctions against actions allowed under EU law were unacceptable and a violation of international law. Currently, there was a “very open dialogue” about this with the US government and Congress.

In addition, the Commission was preparing to adopt a reinforced sanction mechanism that will improve Europe’s resilience to the effects of extra-territorial sanctions imposed by third countries, Borrell’s reply also states.  Nothing more can be said about that, said spokesman Mamer. “If we say that we are working on a proposal, then thinking and working on it is still in progress.” He asked for patience until the European Commission was ready to publish the details.

With the planned countermeasures, the European Union is at least sending out a signal for the time being. Evidently, the EU is not inclined to watch the United States interfere in European energy issues to this extent. However, any countermeasure will undoubtedly exacerbate the conflict, particularly on trade. In addition, other issues are already on the table regardless. For Instance, EU diplomats will discuss whether the US entry ban will persist due to the coronavirus pandemic, on Friday. Given the increasing number of infections in the United States, this is considered likely. Hence the relationship is likely to remain tense, no matter what the EU’s response to US Nord Stream 2 sanctions ends up being.

L'articolo US Sanctions Against Nord Stream 2: Germany and the EU are Fighting Back proviene da InsideOver.

For seventy-five years, the US has maintained a significant military presence in Germany. These troops are a vestige of the force that defeated Nazism and held Soviet expansion in check during the Cold War. Today, they symbolize America’s enduring commitment to European peace and stability, and help project Washington’s power worldwide. But that could be about to change.

US Troop Reduction in Germany

Consistent with his pledge to dial down US military deployments overseas, US President Donald Trump is on the cusp of recalling almost a third of America’s German garrison, reports suggest. This would see upwards of 9,000 troops based in the central European country either returned home or redeployed elsewhere. 

Money, it seems, is the critical factor. Germany, like many of Europe’s NATO states, is failing to meet the defense bloc’s requisite military expenditure, 2% of GDP. Indeed, spending just 1.4% of national income on arms, the government of German Chancellor Angela Merkel is among the group’s most miserly members.

Should this frugality be punished with military withdrawal, however? It’s a question that has Washington divided. 

Proponents of Trump’s approach point to the nation’s changing geostrategic priorities. No longer is a bulwark needed to ward off Soviet encroachment from the East, an omnipresent danger that dissipated with the end of the Cold War. 

Republicans Oppose Trump’s Move

But for those on the other side of the argument, the threat from Russia remains potent enough to merit an armed presence in Germany. 

“[Withdrawing troops] would significantly damage US national security as well as strengthen the position of Russia to our detriment,” wrote 22 Republican lawmakers in a letter to the White House, adding: “We believe that signs of a weakened US commitment to NATO will encourage further Russian aggression and opportunism.”

Containing the Kremlin’s expansionist instincts is but one function of America’s German garrison. From the Ramstein Air Base outside of Mannheim — a city in the country’s southwest — operations in Africa and the Middle East are launched and coordinated. Likewise, the neighboring Landstuhl medical center cares for US service personnel injured in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.

Downsizing these facilities would be a blow both to America’s projection of global power and to Germany itself, which has always welcomed the stabilizing presence of US troops. Russia, critics say, would be the only winner from Trump’s proposed military withdrawal.   

Russia Welcomes Trump’s Decision

Little surprise, then, that Moscow’s foreign ministry welcomed the news with enthusiasm. “We would welcome any steps by Washington to scale down its military presence in Europe,” said spokeswoman Maria Zakharova. “Such steps would undoubtedly help reduce confrontational potential and ease military and political tensions in the Euro-Atlantic region.”

But for Russia, there could be a sting in the tail. Rumours in Washington suggest that soldiers siphoned from German garrisons could be redeployed to Poland, bolstering an ever growing US military presence in the Eastern European state. For officials in Warsaw – which meet NATO’s 2% defense spending benchmark — this is promising news.

“If you look at the strategic needs of the alliance, it’s obvious that we should have more troops and more defensive capabilities on the eastern flank,” said Pawel Jablonski, Poland’s deputy foreign minister.   

Moscow, unsurprisingly, has strongly warned against such action, branding it flagrant provocation by the West. This rebuke ought to worry the German government, which has invested a huge amount of time, effort, and capital into the Nordstream 2 project, a gas pipeline that runs from Russia into Europe via the Baltic Sea. Fraying East-West relations threaten to put the brakes on the scheme, which is months away from completion. 

The Growing Rift Between Europe and the US

Fearing the consequences of Moscow’s deepening energy dominance of Europe, Washington has fiercely opposed the scheme. The dispute is emblematic of a widen foreign policy rift between NATO’s historic allies. Be it with the US’s crippling sanctions regime against Iran — which European nations, including Germany, France, and Britain, are working to sidestep — or America’s showdown with Chinese firm Huawei (which much of Europe continues to do business with), it’s clear that both sides of the Atlantic are not singing from the same hymn sheet. 

With an election approaching, this matters more to Trump than ever before. In 2016, he struck gold with a simple message: why should American taxpayers subsidize the security of parsimonious partners? If he can do that again — starting with Germany’s US troop contingent — he’ll likely come out a winner once again. 

L'articolo Worries Around Trump’s Plan To Pull US Troops Out Of Germany proviene da InsideOver.

Over the past weekend, Chancellor Merkel travelled to Russia for a conversation with President Putin about the current crises as well as future bilateral relations that would benefit both parties tremendously. For Germany, it comes with a high price tag, however.

Merkel’s last visit to the Kremlin is an almost distant memory; however, the current geopolitical developments made a meeting a necessity. On an increasingly unpredictable world stage and surrounded by, at times, erratic interlocutors, both Merkel and Putin did not forget what they have in each other. It was thus the reanimation of a relationship that has been through highs and lows, but more or less amicable on a personal level – even throughout the international outcry over the Crimea annexation and subsequent sanctions against Russia.

After a recent diplomatic dispute over an alleged contract killing in Berlin, however, the relationship appeared to deteriorate once again. Germany’s federal prosecutor suspects that government agencies in Russia or the Chechnya republic ordered the murder. In his first reaction, Putin referred to the killed individual as a “murderer” and “bandit.” Then Putin first accused the German government of not having extradited the man, despite continuous requests, something that has been confirmed as a downright falsehood by now.

Nonetheless, when Merkel arrived in Moscow last weekend, both sides made a noticeable effort to conduct the trip as amicably as possible. However, the personal relationship between the two is not the reason. Rather their respective plans for future cooperation and mutual benefits a stable relationship between Moscow and Berlin provides.

Putin, for one, communicated why Germany was so crucial for Russia, which is primarily based on trade. Germany remains Russia’s second most important trading partner behind China. Moreover, the overall German investment in Russia in the previous year recorded $20 billion.

Germany remains the economic powerhouse of Europe and the fourth most potent economy in the world in terms of nominal GDP. It is thus not a surprise that Russia seeks to not only benefit from it but participate in it. However, it is not merely Putin’s rhetoric that is proving his vision. It is his actions also. It was thus no coincidence that essential figures of Russian and German economic life participated in the meeting, such as Gazprom Deputy Chairman Miller, Russias Minister of Economic Affairs Oreshkin, and the head of the economic and financial department in the German Chancellery.

While the current economic cooperation between Germany and Russia is primarily about the completion of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, even more, significant plans appear to be on the horizon, given the presence of these marquise names.

However, it is not only Russia, who hopes to be a beneficiary in this relationship and future projects. Though, for Germany, these benefits are primarily a part of foreign and security policies.

So far, Germany has appeared alongside France in the talks in Normandy format since 2014, attempting to facilitate lasting peace between Ukraine and Russia. Now, however, Germany is trying to facilitate peace in Libya. In the so-called “Berlin Process,” Germany seeks to mediate between the Libyan government under Prime Minister Fayiz as-Sarraj and the insurgent General Haftar.

At the meeting with Merkel last weekend, Putin assured her that he would support her initiative, which is crucial if any progress is anticipated. Putin possesses creed in the Middle East, a region in which Germany does hardly have an identity. With Putin stating the Berlin Process was a “good step in the right direction,” Merkel received a quasi blessing from the Kremlin to move to the next stage.

This next stage occurred when Merkel sent out official invites for a meeting in Berlin this Sunday, including high ranking names such as Mike Pompeo and Russia’s Foreign Minister Lavrov.

It is not the first time, however, that both have displayed unanimity. The same applied in 2015 regarding the Vienna Atomic Energy Agreement. With the issue being pressing right now, Merkel emphasized in Moscow that Germany seeks to keep the agreement with Iran alive. All diplomatic channels would have to be used for this as Iran should not get nuclear weapons. Putin occurred and pledged his commitment in favor of the continuation of the 2015 agreement.

All in all, the meeting of Merkel and Putin in Moscow displayed a surprising degree of unity. Merkel, who has openly stated that with the shift of US interests in the world, Germany had to become more self-reliant and explore new avenues. Whether Putin can be Germany’s best new bet must be doubted, however. The latter has shown that his geopolitical interests are purely governed by Russian advancement. A dependence on the Kremlin, particularly in terms of solving global crises, can thus not be the way forward for Germany.

L'articolo Merkel’s Visit in Moscow: Putin Opportunity and Germany’s Detriment? proviene da InsideOver.

When Ursula von der Leyen was nominated for the role of European Commission president, she was pitched as a compromise candidate. Someone the various factions could get behind to end their unseemly squabbling. French leader Emmanuel Macron, a champion of Von der Leyen’s cause, said that ‘European DNA’, the genetic code of cross-continental consensus, coursed through her veins.

In Von der Leyen’s home state, it’s hard to find many who would recognize this portrayal. In Germany, she is nicknamed ‘Steel Magnolia’, a battleaxe who burns bridges where others build them. She’s already one of the country’s least popular politicians, and once she assumes residence in Brussels, it’s only going to get worse. Having risen to the EU’s top job with the backing of Angela Merkel, Von der Leyen’s policies have put her on a collision course with her long-standing ally.

Von der Leyen was one of Merkel’s first cabinet picks when she became chancellor way back in 2005. She’s remained in the government ever since, the only person to have been there throughout Merkel’s entire reign. But she’s made plenty of enemies along the way, as was glaringly evident during her recent election campaign.

Former Social Democrat leader Martin Schulz, whose party told its MEPs not to vote for Von der Leyen, described her as “the government’s weakest minister.” This reaction was echoed at all points on the political compass, from the Greens to the far-right Alternative fur Deutschland. Even Katarina Barley, who previously served alongside Von der Leyen in Merkel’s government and is now a vice-president of the European Parliament, vowed to vote against her.

As political commentator Christian Weilmeier explains, Von der Leyen’s reputation is at an all-time low among the German people – only a third of whom think she’s the right person to lead Europe. While Merkel is generally respected for her basic decency, Von der Leyen is caricatured as a lone wolf who’s never afraid to bare her teeth. As Weilmeier tells InsideOver, “she’s seen as very career-oriented, very selfish. She’s not with the people, she’s focused on her own world. She’ll always pursue what’s good for her.”

During her time as defence minister, Von der Leyen provided ample evidence of her lone-wolfishness. Weilmeier describes her tenure as “a disaster”, a view reinforced by one former German army officer, who spoke to InsideOver anonymously. The newspapers may have focused on reports that Von der Leyen subverted government procurement rules to hire a series of external consultants, including one which employed her son. But as the officer tells us, this is only the tip of the iceberg.

“She was always quick to blame others for her mistakes,” the officer says. “We had an assault rifle crisis for example, and she blamed everyone but herself. Then it emerged that there was a plot to frame refugees for terror attacks, and she handled it terribly. She said there was a racism problem in the Germany army, and a failure of leadership. How can you say that to people in combat, who risk their lives? It was a disgrace.

“She fired generals of 40 years’ service without even telling them, and ordered pictures of generals taken down from barrack walls because they’d fought in World War II – even though they’d served the German army for years in the post-war period. 

“In the army, you won’t find who’s sad that she’s gone. As a European citizen, I can only say that I’m sorry for our continent.”

A sad day for democracy

Von der Leyen may have hoped that, by swapping Berlin for Brussels, she might escape some of the criticism. But the manner of her ascent to the top job has only heightened the scrutiny back home. 

In backing Von der Leyen, EU leaders defied a protocol known as spitzenkandidaten, which obliges them to choose from the candidates nominated by the Europe’s MEPs. If you’re struggling to work out which country came up with this protocol, the name’s a bit of a giveaway.

To make matters even more sensitive, the EU leaders chose her over another German, Manfred Weber, who had been nominated by an overwhelming margin in his party. Weber has since become one of Von der Leyen’s most vehement critics in the German press, calling her election “a sad day for European democracy,” 

Now, however, Von der Leyen has the chance to stamp her authority. She’s already shown her willingness to go against her home country by removing Martin Selmayr, the powerful head of the European Commission’s civil service, after vowing that “there can be only high-ranking German at the top… and hopefully this will be me.”

Soon, however, she’ll have to start putting her ideas into practice, which is likely to throw up even more obstacles from her own state.

The centerpiece of Von der Leyen’s campaign was the promise of a ‘Green Deal’, designed to make Europe carbon-neutral by 2050. She wants to ramp up the bloc’s emissions reduction targets and prevent companies shuffling between EU countries to dodge pollution restrictions. She’s even pledged to turn part of the European Investment Bank into a climate bank, unlocking €1 million of investment. Will this go down well with Nigel Farage?

Merkel has some impressive credentials when it comes to climate change, having steered the UN’s inaugural climate change conference way back in 1995. However, under pressure from German industrial lobbyists, she’s actively worked against many of the EU’s most progressive environmental measures.

On Merkel’s watch, the German government has given away generous pollution rights to its factory chiefs and blocked EU plans to limit new car emissions. The chancellor has pressured Brussels to water down its climate targets and opposed plans to increase the share of renewables in the overall energy mix. She’s even rejected the idea of pushing for zero carbon emissions by 2050 – the very target Von der Leyen is running with.

Yet all this pales into insignificance compared with the potential impact of Nordstream 2, the new pipeline which will pump gas from Russia to Germany via the Baltic, cutting countries such as Ukraine and Poland out of the loop. These countries fear Russia may now cut off their gas supply, or even launch military action with no pesky supply deals to worry about. Observers further afield worry about Vladimir Putin gaining too much influence over European affairs. Yet Merkel has consistently defied the EU’s attempts to take control of the Nordstream project, and she’s succeeded in brokering a deal which allows Germany to decide whether or not the EU’s regulations should apply.

For Von der Leyen, a proud Putin hawk, the idea of the Kremlin having a foothold in the heart of Europe doesn’t bear thinking about. But to guard against this chilling reality, and deliver her flagship environmental package, she may have to rally herself for a showdown with the woman who helped put her in office.

Will such a showdown come to pass? Christian Weilmeier says it’s “very difficult to say. Von der Leyen’s been part of Merkel’s inner circle for years and I presume that, in the event of severe differences, Merkel will try to avoid any rupture.

“On the other hand, Von der Leyen will stay longer in office than Merkel, so will be eager to avoid anything which could rock her power within the Commission. She must consider more interests than Merkel, especially Macron, who has a different agenda than Merkel. Merkel always tries to avoid open conflicts, but this is no guarantee that this strategy will be successful in this case. 

“One thing’s for sure: Von der Leyen won’t be a Commission president who defends German interests. Germany, and its mode of politics, will face big trouble in the years to come.”

L'articolo An Enemy of Her State? proviene da InsideOver.