Remove ads

Introducing the LemonFools Personal Finance Calculators

Germany, Nordstream and NATO

High levels of moderation
Forum rules
no trolling, name calling, no arguments.
Material posted here that is disparaging towards any group on the basis of race, faith, nationality, gender, disability or sexual orientation will be deleted and any poster of such material risks suspension.
Nimrod103
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1631
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:10 pm
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 128 times

Germany, Nordstream and NATO

#151827

Postby Nimrod103 » July 11th, 2018, 6:43 pm

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... ar-energy/

Trump's criticizes Germany doing huge energy deals with Russia, at a time when the West were supposed to be exerting pressure on them. And Germany funelling money into their economy, instead of NATO. It is just a huge joke to regard Trump as having won the Presidency with Russian aid (for which there is no evidence), when Germany is rapidly becoming a Russian puppet.

The EU has not yet approved Nordstream, yet construction is well underway, so proving that Germany does what it likes within the EU, irrespective of any comments from Brussels. Due to May, we will become not just a vassal state of the EU, but of Germany to boot. But we knew that anyway, because May showed her deal to Merkel before the HoC.

dspp
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2442
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 1495 times
Been thanked: 452 times

Re: Germany, Nordstream and NATO

#151834

Postby dspp » July 11th, 2018, 6:57 pm

Nimrod,

Personally I am firmly against Nordstream 2, as it further undermines the position of Ukraine and Poland. Indeed that is precisely the point from a Russian perspective.

My reading of the news on the project is:
- that it is not authorised yet;
- the European Commission is strongly objecting to it;
- and construction has not yet started (or at least not within the EU);
- and there are other more attractive solutions from a wider European perspective.

You indicate that construction has started. If so exactly what has been started ?

(please excuse me but I have no interest in subscribing or registering with the Torygraph)

regards, dspp

(fwiw the wiki on it is here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stre ... d_Stream_2 )

Nimrod103
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1631
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:10 pm
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 128 times

Re: Germany, Nordstream and NATO

#151842

Postby Nimrod103 » July 11th, 2018, 7:50 pm

dspp wrote:Nimrod,

Personally I am firmly against Nordstream 2, as it further undermines the position of Ukraine and Poland. Indeed that is precisely the point from a Russian perspective.

My reading of the news on the project is:
- that it is not authorised yet;
- the European Commission is strongly objecting to it;
- and construction has not yet started (or at least not within the EU);
- and there are other more attractive solutions from a wider European perspective.

You indicate that construction has started. If so exactly what has been started ?

(please excuse me but I have no interest in subscribing or registering with the Torygraph)

regards, dspp

(fwiw the wiki on it is here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stre ... d_Stream_2 )


The article says that construction has started on Russian territory. I am not clear, but I assume that the routing of nearly all the pipeline under the Baltic Sea is governed by wayleave treaties so that individual border countries such as Poland cannot hold it up. The Germans regard it as the most attractive solution to their plan to abandon nuclear energy.

dspp
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2442
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 1495 times
Been thanked: 452 times

Re: Germany, Nordstream and NATO

#151850

Postby dspp » July 11th, 2018, 8:59 pm

Nimrod103 wrote:
dspp wrote:Nimrod,

Personally I am firmly against Nordstream 2, as it further undermines the position of Ukraine and Poland. Indeed that is precisely the point from a Russian perspective.
.....You indicate that construction has started. If so exactly what has been started ?
regards, dspp

(fwiw the wiki on it is here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stre ... d_Stream_2 )


The article says that construction has started on Russian territory. I am not clear, but I assume that the routing of nearly all the pipeline under the Baltic Sea is governed by wayleave treaties so that individual border countries such as Poland cannot hold it up. The Germans regard it as the most attractive solution to their plan to abandon nuclear energy.


Thanks.

The Russians can do what they like within their own territory, for example just as they started and then abandoned various southern routings. So in itself that does not tell us much.

I think you are slightly mistaken re the maritime law, though it may not matter.

UNCLOS is the governing maritime law, which ironically USA has not ratified (given their moaning about this).

Within the 12nm limit (territorial waters) the coastal state has an absolute right. Going further out to 200nm or the median line, whichever is closer, is an area known as the EEZ. Within that area all nations have right of free passage including vessels and pipelines. However the coastal state is entitled to protect various interests and this last right appears to be not yet well defined. There is in fact a Finnish case that is directly relevant to this (this was the Nordstream 1 case re EIA in EEZ), link below. I don't know how the legalities were resolved to enable Nordstream 1, but the Fins did ultimately grant EIA consent back in 2009/2010.

If it interests you here are some links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters
http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_ ... /part2.htm
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/ ... ech_en.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stre ... d_Stream_2

I think that EU/EC has the competence to determine against Nordstream 2 as a matter of EU Energy Policy. Whether it does so remains to be seen, but it is certainly being vigorously debated both at EU level, and still at German level.

regards, dspp

ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2247
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 126 times
Been thanked: 88 times

Re: Germany, Nordstream and NATO

#151864

Postby ursaminortaur » July 11th, 2018, 10:40 pm

Trump wants NATO countries to spend 4% rather than aim to spend 2% on defence.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/trump-nato-summit-us-germany-spending-nations-russia-merkel-a8443021.html

The US president then raised the ante by insisting that Nato countries should double the 2 per cent of their budget spent on defence to 4 per cent. The demand came despite the fact the United States itself spends 3.5 per cent of its budget on defence.

dspp
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2442
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 1495 times
Been thanked: 452 times

Re: Germany, Nordstream and NATO

#151907

Postby dspp » July 12th, 2018, 10:04 am

ursaminortaur wrote:Trump wants NATO countries to spend 4% rather than aim to spend 2% on defence.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/trump-nato-summit-us-germany-spending-nations-russia-merkel-a8443021.html

The US president then raised the ante by insisting that Nato countries should double the 2 per cent of their budget spent on defence to 4 per cent. The demand came despite the fact the United States itself spends 3.5 per cent of its budget on defence.


And the USA internalises the vast majority of its spend, so that there is very little leakage into the economies of other states. In contrast almost all other NATO or western alliances spend a considerable chunk of their spend in USD and in USA. What's not to like about such a call from Trump, given Trump's worldview.

I myself have a lot of time for pushing NATO countries to up their defence spend as indeed there is a free rider problem. Ideally I personally would like to see 2.5% when I fagpacket the real cost of providing what I think is needed. But Trump is going about it the wrong way imho.

regards, dspp

BobbyD
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2671
Joined: January 22nd, 2017, 2:29 pm
Has thanked: 51 times
Been thanked: 121 times

Re: Germany, Nordstream and NATO

#151984

Postby BobbyD » July 12th, 2018, 2:23 pm

dspp wrote:I myself have a lot of time for pushing NATO countries to up their defence spend as indeed there is a free rider problem. Ideally I personally would like to see 2.5% when I fagpacket the real cost of providing what I think is needed. But Trump is going about it the wrong way imho.

regards, dspp


Belgian Service Pensioners will be ecstatic

Too little of defence spending is useful—over a third of Belgium’s is eaten up by pensions. More should go on R&D and equipment.


- https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/ ... in-trouble

Defence expenditure aspires to becoming a crude measure of defence contribution...

dspp
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2442
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 1495 times
Been thanked: 452 times

Re: Germany, Nordstream and NATO

#151985

Postby dspp » July 12th, 2018, 2:39 pm

BobbyD wrote:
dspp wrote:I myself have a lot of time for pushing NATO countries to up their defence spend as indeed there is a free rider problem. Ideally I personally would like to see 2.5% when I fagpacket the real cost of providing what I think is needed. But Trump is going about it the wrong way imho.

regards, dspp


Belgian Service Pensioners will be ecstatic

Too little of defence spending is useful—over a third of Belgium’s is eaten up by pensions. More should go on R&D and equipment.


- https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/ ... in-trouble

Defence expenditure aspires to becoming a crude measure of defence contribution...


Defence expenditure IS a crude but valid measure of defence contribution.

(we can debate overhead and efficiency of spend matters quite a lot, indeed that is one reason why I am pro-EU, but that is a side-issue)

However for many western-style nations one should expect HR costs to be substantial. It is not just shiny toys, it is also the people - training them, paying for them, retiring them. And since people are the most important single factor that is exactly how it should be. And I don't think anybody on TLF would want anything to be done without properly accounting for this.

regards, dspp


Return to “Polite Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ursaminortaur and 2 guests