5 ms·
> Why would the United States be the one to decide if Germany is allowed to build a pipeline to Russia or not? Because the US is the sole guarantor of German s
by elfexec 7y ago
> Why would the United States be the one to decide if Germany is allowed to build a pipeline to Russia or not?
Because the US is the sole guarantor of German sovereignty. It's why the US has tens of thousands of troops in germany. It's why US decides if and how much oil/gas Japan or South Korea gets from Russia. It's why the US decides if the Dutch get to sell ASML semiconductor equipment to China. It's why the US dictates whether Canada arrests a chinese executive. Pax Americana. Protection doesn't come cheap. It certainly isn't free.
> Image if it was Germany that used sanctions to prevent the US from building a pipeline to Mexico. Would you be ok with that?
Of course not, but germany is in no position to dictate anything to the US. That's the point. If germany had tens of thousands of troops stationed in the US and provided safety to the US and mexico was germany's enemy, then germany would prevent the US from doing business with mexico.
I'm not saying it's right or moral. It's just basic geopolitics. If you depend on another nation for your safety and host tens of thousands of their troops in your country, you are really not a sovereign nation and hence don't have the luxury of making all the decisions on your own.
- Jedi72 7y agoIt's more like gangsters providing "protection" to local businesses. When it comes to the US, you have no choice in the matter.
- pinkfoot 7y ago> Because the US is the sole guarantor of German sovereignty. Sole? So the German armed forces are for what exactly?
- pnw_hazor 7y ago"Along with the reliability woes of air force jetliners, only about a third of Germany’s 128 Eurofighter jets are combat ready and just a quarter of its 130 army helicopters are operational, mainly because of shortages of spare parts. Only one of six submarines and fewer than half of 244 Leopard tanks are working, according to a recent report to Parliament." https://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-germany-armed-forces-20190213-story.html https://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-germany-armed-forces-201...
- pinkfoot 7y agoAnd you don't think they would change that pretty quickly if they really needed to?
- hopia 7y agoConsidering Russia annexed Crimea in a matter of days, I don't think that gives Germany enough time to fix their equipment operational.
- pinkfoot 7y agoTheir risk analysis therefore probably concludes that the present LIKELIHOOD of an invasion AND a successful occupation is too low to worry about. That's the difference between the paranoid and the rational.
- hopia 7y agoThen, what's the point of having any military equipment at all to worry about? Mind you, failing at this gamble would have devastating effects, as was evidenced by many occupied nations during the last major conflict in Europe.
- pinkfoot 7y agoMy guess is its to keep enough professional officers and enlisted staff to be able to mobilise and upgrade their capabilities quickly (with or without allies) in the even the risk evaluation changes. Note that Costa Rica has no defence force at all. > failing at this gamble Yes, all adult decisions are based on uncertainty. Especially when resources are limited.
- pnw_hazor 7y agoThey won't have time to train up the manpower. Even if the US gives them more equipment. For example, it takes the US Army almost 2 years to train helicopter pilots. Similar for Air Force or Navy pilots.