My bond(age) is my word

 

Turin, February 13^th , 2024

My bond(age) is my word

Given that this is an election year this is understandable, but people are making too much of Trump words about NATO and too little about NATO behaviour... for the past decades and multiple presidents from either side of the aisle..

This weekend's media had a welcome respite from the  Superbowl Kelce – Swift saga when Donald Trump had something to say about NATO. At a Rally in Conway, South Carolina. He said:

“Everybody's got to pay ...if we don't pay are you still going to protect us? I said “absolutely not”, they couldn't believe the answer [...] one of the presidents of a big country stood up and said “sir, if we do not pay, and we're attacked by Russia are you still going to protect us?” and I said “ you didn't pay, you are delinquent?” he said “yes, let's say that happened”, “No, I would not protect you, in fact I would encourage them to do whatever the Hell they want. You gotta pay, you gotta pay your bills.” and the money came flowing in. and Henry would know this, if I said “Yes I will, you don't have to pay” most politicians had said to them “yes we will protect you under any circumstances” well then they're never paying up. I said “no no you have to understand, you don't pay your bills you get no protection, it's very simple.” (video in the link)

Now the reactions have been ballistic, also because, as I said, it's an election year in Europe as well in June, hence the “misprints” mushrooming on the net. But I found most interesting what NATO's Secretary General had to say on the matter, which apparently no one bothered to analyse that much. Sorry I didn't find either the video or the press statement, but it is also a tell that Google fails at finding sources but it's quite good at providing people with "curated" commentary content. So the WSJ it is, and it quotes, “Any suggestion  (bold added by me) that allies will not defend each other undermines all of our security, including that of the U.S., and puts American and European soldiers at increased risk. I expect that regardless of who wins the presidential election the U.S. will remain a strong and committed NATO Ally.”

Now this is a very interesting turn of phrase, since depending on how you read it it means a totally different thing from the first impression. And remember, huge amounts of staff time goes into each word at that level.

So, is NATO's Secretary General against anything that would indicate that a NATO country would NOT support another, or is he merely indicating his displeasure that such a thing should be aired in public as a possibility?

Because in the simpler world of conflict, a mix of actions and words is the common language, with “actions” having a disproportionate weight because they are a clearer indication of  BOTH of “intentions” and “capabilities”, the two mantras of the geopolitical analysts. Intentions without capabilities are an empty proposition, as any male adolescent will testify. And capabilities without intentions bolden opponents into adopting courses of action that they would otherwise not adopt... like invading a neighbour. Rings a bell?

So let's not beat about the bush: not only there is a precedent of ACTIONS that would indicate even to persons less perceptive than Russia's FSB that “a NATO country would not support another”, but … the Russian government is DIRECTLY involved, since decades ago. And, mind you, Trump wasn't even in politics at the time. Just look at this, even Wikipedia says it up front: “It was thefirst pipeline that bypassed Ukraine and Poland to deliver Russian natural gas directly to West Europe.“

Now, why should Nordstream pick an undersea route instead of doing the same route overland? Let's take geography out of the picture:

This is the map of Europe's mountain ranges, and none is in the way of a Russia – Germany pipeline. Also, part of the Natural Gas entering the EU comes from North Africa, through pipes going under the Mediterranean and then coming up Italy, one of the most mountainous regions of Europe.

And this is the map of Pipelines. When Nordstream was started, Russia and Germany were ALREADY linked by multiple overland pipes, with routes already surveyed, land rights obtained, maintenance contracts in place and logistics worked out. Remember that Offshore pipelines are about twice as costly to build than onshore ones.

So, Russia and Germany agreed on Nordstream for reasons other than costs and logistics. What's left? As said by others as well, only the intention to keep BOTH Poland and Ukraine out of the loop. Now, I will not enter into a discussion about Ukraine's political situation, but... Poland?? Seriously ?

So, the fact that none other than Scholz publicly stated that Trump's NATO remarks are “irresponsible and dangerous” looks liike a sad joke, since his insistence on full exit from Nuclear power generation not only increased EU dependence on foreign energy sources generally, but in the case of Germany it made them all the more linked with Russia. It should be noted that he was also Minister of Finance in the last Merkel government that decided upon this.

It should also be duly noted that while an undersea pipeline in the Baltic is a great candidate for sabotage wothout any possibility to find out a culprit, doing as much to a land pipeline while maintaining plausible deniability is a rather sketchy endeavour. For Example, while Sweden concluded its investigation by basically claiming it's out of its jurisdiction, that would be impossible in a land incident.

But this is not Old news, it is OLD old news. Ronald Reagan decided on an embargo on key components of a Russian pipeline shipping Gas to Europe in the early 80ies. Practically NO US administration has omitted to communicate to Europe that its dependence on foreign energy, especially Russian, was a problem, since I started having heir grow on my face, through to now when I have very little hair on my head. And Europe preparedness? This:

I am an almost rabid libertarian and I recognize the right of anyone to deprecate anyone else. BUT blaming Trump for his words would work better if four decades of action hadn't shown Putin that.... Trump is not wrong. And thinking that Putin needs anyone else but himself to start hostilities anywhere is, and again this is my filter on reality, a desperate attempt to fake that words are relevant by a European leadership which engaged in actions clearly indicating that they'd dump Ukraine and Poland too if push came to shove.

To see how actions trump words <pun alert>, see Poland's military acquisition programs in the aftermath of the recent invasion of Ukraine: how many weapon systems have any involvement/control by another EU countries?

The answer is pretty easy: NONE whatsoever. And it is quite telling that while  sitting practically cheek by jawl with the company that built the sole tank alternative to the US Abrams tank , the Leopard 2, and built Leopard 1 for practically ALL NATO countries outside the US in the last quarter of the last century, Poland went for its tanks to... South Korea. Which last time I looked it's not exactly next door.

So remember, the same Trump that during the present campaign has RECOUNTED that episode, also said this to Europeans:

Germany Is A "Captive Of Russia" As Long As They're Buying Putin's Oil And Gas

In my lifetime he is the is the seventh US President who took the liberty to tell Europeans that. Maybe, just maybe,  eight time's the charm, and Europe will at least TRY to get out of bondage.