Syria: The case for inaction

[JMA]

Hilariously, I wrote almost the same back in 2008 already.

It's astonishing how long wrong ideas persist if only they are being liked by a large group of people: As if people believe what they like, not what's well-founded in facts.

Nothing has improved for Germany since 2008 in terms of growing energy dependency on Russia. No doubt you will keep us informed on German progress in this regard.

So in the meantime you can continue to delude yourself on the issue.

I have noticed since my return your shrill, vocal and rabid anti-American views. I must go back and search for your posts railing about Russia's breaches of Chechnya and Georgian sovereignty. Maybe you can direct me if you did?

[Ulenspiegel]

JMA,

the situation was worse when there was no ability to buy large amounts of LNG., i.e. before 2005.

That Russian deliveries are convenient -as some German companies had invested in the pipelines- is not disputed, however, the alternatives in form of LNG, alternatives that German companies, especially the ones without pipelines, can buy on a global market, did actually reduce the pressure. BTW did absolute traded volume change? Or is the German demand lower with constant Russian deliveries (-> higher percentage of Russian gas)?

Or from a Russain point of view. Many huge NG contracts between German companies and Russian suppliers do not longer include the condition that NG price is pegged to the crude price, a feature that would be favourable for the Russian suppliers. In addition, some huge contracts were re-negotiated in the last years with better conditions for the German customers. Does this really support your picture?

Russia has the principle advantage that her production does not decline as fast as the Norwegian or British fields in the North Sea, therefore, Russia may even use the pipelines to Germany, which IIRC are underused, to supply UK with Russian NG in future, i.e. Russia has more constructive alternatives in future, but not necessarily more power which would rely on destructive actions.

[Fuchs]

I have noticed since my return your shrill, vocal and rabid anti-American views. I must go back and search for your posts railing about Russia's breaches of Chechnya and Georgian sovereignty. Maybe you can direct me if you did?

There are two reasons for why you won't find much of it:

(1) Higher standards apply to allies of my country. Russia does not violate the North Atlantic Treaty and prove itself an unreliable ally by doing so, ever. It cannot, for it is no member.

(2) I don't participate in echo chambers. I'm fine with letting others write stuff; I myself focus on what others do not write. This way others don't learn about the many times I'm in agreement and I make my opinions/ideas look more unusual on average than they are.
Enough people mention that Russia violates Georgia's sovereignty. The Russians do indeed the same NATO did to Yugoslavia in Kosovo. Except that they didn't seal it as NATO/EU did.


I'm not anti-American. I dislike many American policies a lot, though.
The United States are a horrible ally, and I am fully justified to say so because I can back it up any time. Keep in mind how my country got into WWI: An overly aggressive allied great power went too far with its bullying of a small power based on fabricated allegations. Now which countries do such things nowadays? A German has to oppose certain American policies if he has learnt anything from WWI.
The Americans get what they deserve from me. Too many Americans don't understand the causality between their bad policies and the troubles they're generally in, though.
____________________________________

Back to topic:
It is always irritating to me how little regard especially the news organisations have for anything than the primary schoolyard-level emotions in the lead-up to wars.
Do those talking heads truly believe that it's legitimate to kill hundreds of people in order to not make a politician or his office look weak?
If true, I would rate them more morally bankrupt than medical doctors who kill human patients for experiments in order to cure something later.

The whole concept of war being the exception to the rule which requires really good justification seems to be largely lost in the news media. Even here in SWC, we don't argue from a principled default position of "no war", but begun to compare the costs and benefits to the potential aggressor only. The costs in Syria are being neglected. Air strikes could easily kill hundreds of humans (combatants or not - killing requires a good justification). I don't see equal heavyweights among the "pro" arguments.

[TheCurmudgeon]

____________________________________
Even here in SWC, we don't argue from a principled default position of "no war", but begun to compare the costs and benefits to the potential aggressor only.

That is because war is a natural state of human affairs. It is the default position. No war is the aberration that requires effort to maintain.

[John T. Fishel]

Carmudgeon, you are correct. there is not a day in the history of the human race that has been without war in some part of the world.

Fuchs, WWI's causes are much more complex than any short answer. However, Austria-Hungary went to war against Serbia because a subject of the Emperor who happened to be a Serb and a nationalist assassinated the heir to the throne giving A-H the excuse to stomp on Serbia. The Kaiser stupidly gave A-H his blank check while Russia had an alliance with Serbia but also with France who had an understanding with England. Then there were the mobilization schedules. Finally, Germany invaded France through neutral Belgium. Oh, and Italy deserted its alliance with Germany and A-H to later join the allies. so, who was at fault? All of them to some degree. But the Kaiser and his ministers suffered from a real failure to examine the consequences of their actions before taking them.

Cheers

JohnT

[Dayuhan]

there is not a day in the history of the human race that has been without war in some part of the world.

Certainly true, but even if the existence of war in some place is the default condition of the human race, that's no reason for any given nation to select war as the default mechanism for dealing with problems, especially other people's problems. For the US at this time, I'd suggest that the default approach to other people's fights is to not get involved. Certainly that default could be overridden in sufficiently compelling circumstances, but it doesn't need justification. There's no need to present a case for non-involvement in other people's wars. The burden of justification is on those who want to get involved.

A nation that selected military involvement as the default response to every mess on the planet would find that position unsustainable, and would have to desist or collapse. Nobody has the resources for that.

No war anywhere would certainly be an aberration, but we don't need that. We just need no war involving us, a quite different thing. Arguably that's an aberration as well, but that's no less reason to try to get there.

[Fuchs]

No, it's not true.
It's said that immediately after VJ-day (1945) there were 26 days of 100% world peace until some conflict flared up in SE Asia.

That's beside the point anyway. Switzerland has been at peace for hundreds of years; a conflict in Rwanda for example doesn't mean that war is normal, peace is not normal.

War is destructive, not productive and this coupled with mankind's survival proves that war cannot be normal. It's the deviation from normal.


JTF; point being, one better not give a blank check or other kind of support to an aggressive ally. In fact, an aggressive neighbour who insists on bullying small powers may very well be a problem, not the solution to one's security challenges.

[Fuchs]

Nothing has improved for Germany since 2008 in terms of growing energy dependency on Russia. No doubt you will keep us informed on German progress in this regard.

Life must be easy if one free-floats, disregarding facts and instead believing what one wants to believe.

The actual statistics
http://www.bafa.de/bafa/de/energie/e...n/egashist.pdf
natural gas imports from Russia
2008: 1.527.566 TJ of total 4.040.640 TJ = 37.8%
2012: 1.413.482 TJ of total 4.029.702 TJ = 35.1%
(percentages without the storage net total, preliminary figures)


primary energy consumption of Germany in 2012. Erdgas = natural gas ('earth gas')

report on the topic http://www.bmwi.de/DE/Themen/Energie...id=292324.html

You're badly mistaken if you think Germany could not absorb the loss of 35.1% of 21.6% of its primary energy consumption (= 7.6%). Natural gas is mostly a primary energy for the peak electricity generation. Electricity can also be imported from neighbours during peak times. Germany is actually a net electricity exporting country.


The difficulties caused by a loss of Russian natural gas imports would be dispersed and thus diluted in Central and West Europe.

Die Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) kommt in einer Analyse zum dem Ergebnis, dass auch die Produktion der Gaskraftwerke in Deutschland im Halbjahresvergleich um ein Viertel eingebrochen ist (...)

The DUH comes in an analysis to the conclusion that the production of the (natural) gas powerplants in Germany shrank by a quarter in a half-year comparison (...)"
25% less electricity from natural gas and we didn't even notice.


There are plenty people believing in the fragility of European countries - "Muslim invasion!" "low fertility" "dependence on Russian gas". The reality is non-spectacular, even boring.
They want to believe in a fragile, weak and lost Europe, though.
__________________________

Back to topic:
Germany is less dependent on Russia than Russia is dependent on Germany.
We can bear a loss of Russian energy exports much easier than they bear the loss of energy export revenues. It's the only big thing which runs well in their economy.