Ulrich Speck Profile picture
Sep 15, 2020 10 tweets 2 min read Read on X
Germany feels more uncomfortable with NS2 more than ever, but it feels equally uncomfortable with abandoning the project. And the reason for this is geopolitical.
It feels uncomfortable because it is concerned about Navalny and about Belarus, which are seen just the last points in a long list of aggressive acts by Russia. Ukraine was the wake-up call, the gamer-changer, 2020 is the confirmation that Russia is not really a partner.
Yet it's difficult to change course after years of pushing NS2 through against the will and views of EU neighbors. And US pressure doesn't help, as bowing to it would look as if Germany had become a vassal of Trump.
But the biggest problem for Germany is that skipping NS2 would change the country's relationship with Russia — something some commentators from Moscow are busy to emphasize (with warning undertones).
Germany's current relation with Russia has been defined by 1989/91. Moscow agreed to German unification, and it removed its troops from German soil. Helmut Kohl was very keen to keep this new friendship on track — a key plank of Germany's post-Cold War geopolitics.
And Schröder took it to the extreme, in his second term and certainly afterwards. But Merkel who took over 2005 left this track largely untouched — even if she has built a second confrontational track of German Russia policy, namely since Russia's attack on Ukraine 2014.
Yet while Germany pushed for tough economic sanctions, it was keen to provide Russia with an off-ramp: a path back towards cooperation. The energy relationship embodied by NS2 served as an important signal to Russia that Germany remains a friend (somehow) despite disagreements.
Cancelling NS2 would signal to Russia that this cozy partnership is finally over, that there is only one track left: tension and confrontation. Yet Germany doesn't want to send this signal — it certainly doesn't want to confront Russia alone (and somehow reverse 1989/91).
But Germany on Russia has no back-up. The US is, unlike in 2014, when Obama and Merkel worked hand in hand, currently not a partner on Russia. And Merkel's attempt to Europeanize the issue (share responsibility) has apparently failed.
If change is not being pushed, the status quo will prevail. At least at this point it seems highly unlikely that Germany will take bold steps to cancel NS2.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Ulrich Speck

Ulrich Speck Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ulrichspeck

May 7
America's original sin: endorsing Russia's imperial instincts in the early 1990s. foreignaffairs.com/articles/russi…
Image
"Regrettably, the imperial impulse remains strong and even appears to be strengthening. ... (Russian) military self-assertion in such places as Moldova, Crimea, Ossetia, Abkhazia, Georgia and Tajikistan perpetuates imperial enclaves on the outer edges of the former empire".
"Most ominous... has been the intensification of Moscow's economic and military pressure on Kiev, in keeping with the feeling in Moscow that Ukrainian independence is an abnormality as well as a threat to Russia's standing as a global power."
Read 8 tweets
Apr 16
Interesting read. Yet the authors downplay Russia's war aims and they largely assume that Putin negotiated in good faith.
The evidence presented here is more consistent with another interpretation: that Russia was hoping to force Ukraine into a settled surrender through the talks. They knew that the West would not sign anything that entailed the obligation to go to war with Russia.
Russia since 2014 has used both, war and talks, to achieve what it wants, the full submission of Ukraine. There's nothing new with this. Talks are just another tactic to achieve the overall goal, the elimination of Ukraine as an independent state and as a nation.
Read 7 tweets
Apr 12
There are rumors that the US is trying to push a settlement between Russia and Ukraine.

Very unlikely that this works even temporarily.

But in any case, European military support for Ukraine must massively grow. Only way to contain and deter Russia is military counter-pressure.
It would be naive, or suicidal, to think that Russia would honor any agreement; the only borders it doesn't cross are borders that are well protected -- through credible deterrence. In order to get there, Europeans must invest quickly and massively in Ukraine's armed forces.
The question -- if those rumors are true and if Putin thinks a deal with Biden is better than one potentially with Trump (very big if) -- would not be deal OR deterrence through military strength. The latter will always be essential.
Read 7 tweets
Apr 8
We're dealing with the wrong historical analogy. The threat for Europe is not to slip involuntarily into a world war as in 1914, a fashionable analogy since 2014 when everybody had read books about 1914 and compared it to the dispute with Russia over Crimea and Donbas.
This analogy has assumed that nobody wants a real war, which made preventing misunderstandings the key challenge.
Since early 2021/22 however we know a) that Russia does not accept Ukrainian statehood, b) that it is ready for a major confrontation with the West, c) that it is ready to wage major wars, d) that the ultimate goal is to drive the US out of Europe and to dominate Eurasia.
Read 14 tweets
Apr 2
The question Russia is putting to Europe: are you willing to defend the liberal, free and open order you have been provided with by the US after WWII (Western Europe) and after the Cold War (Central Europe)?
For decades, all Europeans had to do was to broadly follow the America lead, and in return they were provided with a regional (European) and global order that gave them more freedom, prosperity and security than ever in their history.
For the US, since the end of the Cold War to maintain this order was very cheap. Yet instead of integrating, Russia and China now are challenging this order, which makes its maintenance far more costly. The US won't do it (largely) alone anymore.
Read 6 tweets
Mar 31
Jein. Schröder ist nicht einfach "Gaslobbyist", das ist eine Verharmlosung, als ginge es einfach nur um wirtschaftliche Interessen. Er arbeitet für geopolitische Kreml-Interessen: Gas ist für Putin nicht nur wirtschaftliches Gut, sondern auch Waffe im Kampf um Dominanz.
Wir wissen, dass Schröder sehr aktiv in Europa und vor allem Deutschland dafür gearbeitet hat, die Nord Stream 2-Pipeline durchzusetzen.
Anfang 2016, als noch nicht ganz klar, ob Merkel grünes Licht geben würde, sagte mir der Vertreter eines Wirtschaftsverbandes: Nord Stream 2 wird gebaut, Gerhard Schröder hat es mir gesagt.
Read 11 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(