January 19, 2022 - 2:21pm
A pipeline of natural gas from Russia to the West is also, in effect, a pipeline of money from the West to Russia. Neither side can cut off supplies to the other side without cutting itself off.
It’s a co-dependent relationship that has helped to keep to peace for decades. Pipeline politics has been especially helpful to the countries between Russia and Germany — and, in particular, Poland and Ukraine.
A briefing from the Bruegel institute includes a map showing how key pipeline routes cross Polish and Ukrainian territory. In the absence of alternative routes, Russia wouldn’t be able to invade either country without running the risk of losing vital energy export infrastructure. This is especially important for Ukraine, which lacks the protection of NATO membership.
However, Germany has undermined this strategic protection by cooperating with Russia to build the Nord Stream pipeline, which runs via the Baltic Sea thus bypassing Russia’s immediate neighbours. It was completed in 2011. More recently — and despite Russia’s growing aggression toward Ukraine, including the annexation of Crimea — a second pipeline (Nord Stream 2) has been built following the same route.
Germany has persisted in this policy despite dire warnings from the Poles and Ukrainians. America was also staunchly opposed — or at least it was until the Biden administration threw in the towel (a hallmark of its foreign policy).
It is therefore now possible for Russia to turn the whole of Ukraine into a war zone while keeping the gas flowing to the EU (and the EU’s money flowing back the other way). By the same token, Russia can more easily cut-off energy supplies to and via Ukraine.
With Russian troops massing on Ukraine’s borders, the nightmare scenario is coming true. Russia is taking full advantage of the strategic position that Nord Stream — and Germany — has given it. Anger against Berlin is building. Pressed on whether sanctions might be applied against the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, the German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said “all this will have to be discussed”. That’s too little too late. If there is an invasion then it isn’t just Russia that must held accountable.
The Germans might say that they were simply looking after their own interests. But that’s not good enough. The nations of the free world have benefited from the fact that, in matters of security, they’ve looked after one another’s interests.
Germany has not made a fair contribution to the West’s collective shield. Even worse, it has used its wealth to recklessly compromise its neighbours’ security. So in return, the German government should be presented with a bill for the full cost of its defence through NATO and the wider Pax Americana.
Of course, the Germans could refuse to pay. In which case they should have to provide their own security. Or, perhaps, they could ask their Russian friends instead?
Peter Franklin is Associate Editor of UnHerd. He was previously a policy advisor and speechwriter on environmental and social issues.
peterfranklin_
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeHistorical parallel playing out – Korean War cessation 53? Both sides are being gradually degraded. Zelensky has three victory requirements – full territory returns, reparations and war crime trials. Understandable after what his people have been through and would be justice for their bravery and ingenuity. But unrealistic. Putin can outlast him and the idea of an internal coup/replacement a pipe-dream. Putin’s Praetorian Guard is immense and too many on the pay-roll. Russia’s economy is gradually being degraded but Ukraine’s is much, much worse.
The West could end this tomorrow. Ukraine gets immediate NATO and accelerated EU membership and economic guarantees but Zelensky doesn’t get his three war aims. It is though a victory for the Ukranian people as it is what they have wanted for some time. And maybe a bigger victory. The border becomes another 38th parallel, and we help Ukraine become another South Korea with a new Marshall Aid package. Putin and his mafia are left degraded but not fully defeated. Only the Russian people can do that. But the world is changed, and for the better thanks to the valour of the Ukrainian people.
An extremely apposite comment with which I agree wholeheartedly.
The notion that winter weather prevents hostilities is not shared by many military experts. Currently, water-logged deep ground is hampering movement. Freezing weather, and with it solidifying ground, would make movement possible again. Winter weather has historically not stopped military action, from the Middle Ages to the Napoleonic Wars, WW I, or WW II.
What is the assessment that Russian troops are poorly equipped based on? I recall reports from the Ukrainian side complaining that the Russian side fires ten time the shells the Ukrainian army is able to, and Ukrainians die in their trenches without ever seeing a Russian soldier. So what is it?
“In war, truth is the first casualty.”
Answer:
News from five months ago.
The Russian artillery advantage is gone, along with much of Russian transport and munitions. All thanks to HIMARS. Why do you think Putin has to now rely on 3rd-world nations for his munitions?
The four-months long Russian attack on Bakhmut is only designed to burnish Prigozhin’s image. It has no military significance. If he can take it, he’s much stronger politically. It would be the only Russian “success” in four months.
Since the average Ukrainian soldier and average Ukrainian unit is now much better equipped than their Russian counterpart, a winter campaign is almost certain.
Both sides remember the near collapse of German forces during the Russian winter counterattack of 1941-42.
Only Ukraine, however, has the wherewithal to do it.
Latest on Kherson:
The Russians apparently changed into civilian clothes, and then hid among the civilians ferried to the eastern side of the Dnipro. The idea was that, if Ukraine hit any ferry, Putin could accuse Kyiv of a war crime.
I might add that:
1) Soldiers dressed as civilians is a war crime.
2) Using civilians as human shields is a war crime.
3) And, since many of the 80,000 civilians evacuated left against their will, ethnic cleansing is a war crime.
Just another day in Putin’s 3-day war…
Perhaps the ethnically Russian civilians in Kherson chose to cross the river. They may not have wanted to stay and face the reprisals meter out by the Ukrainians in Boucha. .
Rather mild, compared to what most people in Kherson have suffered the last eight months. At least their washing machines and racoons are safe.
The side that is winning rarely will agree to a ceasefire or talks. This will last at least till summer–barring the Russian front crumbling.
Since Ukraine outnumbers the Russian army, and is much better prepared for winter combat, look for attacks resembling the Soviet winter counter-offensive in 1941-42.
Ukrainians know their Soviet history well.
My expectations is it would be years and years of border skirmishes. No significant, lasting breakthroughs on either side. Just attrition.
Can we but hope that some semblance of sanity is returning to both adversaries in this futile conflict. Perhaps the Democrats, due to a modest but real defeat in the midterms, have finally come to realise that there is more to lose than gain by pursuing their current unrealistic objectives. And perhaps even mad Vlad can see that things are only going to get worse, so to cut his losses.
Whatever the localised rights and wrongs within Ukraine/Donbas/Crimea, it hardly merits a global depression and potentially World War 3 for the big geopolitical players.
Might do well to consult a map.
Retaking most of the temporarily occupied parts of Ukraine is hardly an “unrealistic objective.” The area in question is actually smaller than the area already liberated.
The Russian Army is finished as an offensive force, while its air force can no longer influence the battlefield. The only real question is whether or not the new, poorly trained “mobiks” can slow the Ukrainian offensive.
Sometimes one just has to face objective reality.
I wonder is there already an arrangement of sorts in place to faciliate Russia’s withdrawal from the right bank of the Dnieper river? Compared to the previous retreats around Balaklaya / Kupyansk / Izyum , this is very orderly so far…
I think the withdrawal is more to do with the Russians maybe learning their lesson from numerous previous failures and finally acting strategically in preserving much needed troops and equipment rather than due to any agreement.
My guess is the winter will lead to heavily fortified front lines which neither side will be able to dislodge, at which point a ceasefire will become much more likely
Given the low quality of the Russian conscripts, and the poor quality of their equipment, it’s doubtful they can hold the front everywhere.
They are outnumbered, and thus cannot rotate units out of the line. They will stay in the trenches until they die.
We won’t see trained new Russian troops at least until the spring. Even then it’s doubtful their training will match that of the Ukrainians. That’s not how the Russian army operates. The officers in their units train them, and they’ve just lost too many.
Looking at the map on TV, it seems to me that the Russians have consolidated their position in the East by retreating to the other side of the river. Zelensky calls it a success but I wonder.
Of course Russian citizens are fed propaganda but aren’t we too? That is war for you!
The people dying in the war in Ukraine are real people, they are not pieces on a board game. A deal where Russia withdraws to the positions held on 23rd of February would be one which Putin cannot afford to ignore. It would also stop the people of the eastern Donbass and Crimea from being ethnically cleansed which would happen if these areas were reconquered by Ukraine. We should remember that Crimea has been Russian since the 18th century while it was only given to Ukraine in 1954.
I share your sentiments, but I fear too much has been broken in the meantime for a solution where the film is rewound to be feasible. Which just means more killing and suffering.
I suspect the number of nuclear strikes in this campaign will equal the number of poison gas attacks since WW2.
In both cases, leaders realized that costs far outweighed benefits.
I suspect the number of nuclear strikes in this campaign will equal the number of poison gas attacks since WW2.
In both cases, leaders realized that costs far outweighed benefits.