> The US as a lot of leverage over Germany, France and most of the EU,
Yes, that's exactly what I meant when talking about US's hegemonic power.
> Whereas western EU countries have more leverage over Russian companies without fearing much retaliation.
Some parts of the Russian political elites really believed (maybe they still do) that Europe's industrial heartland (or what's left of it, anyways) depended on cheap Russian energy. That was of course correct, Germany's industry greatly depends on access to cheap Russian energy. Where the Russians mis-calculated here was in thinking that the Europeans (meaning mostly the Germans) would relinquish their industrial advantage at the behest of the US (and partly the UK, even though is debatable how much of a geo-strategic role the UK still plays on the continent). As the German chancellor said a couple of days ago the upcoming total embargo on Russian energy will have economic consequences (there were talks of a 3-5% hit on the economy), imo this is a very risky play in the middle- to long-term, you don't want a united Germany hit by des-industrialisation in the middle of Europe.
Later edit: This recent editorial from FT's Martin Wolf is pure propaganda, it puts the onus 100% on the Germans and asks them to economically suck it up for the benefit of Europe and of "democracy" (apparently whenever the US gets involved in a war is always for protecting "democracy").
> A brutal conflict has come to Europe of a kind not seen since the second world war, and even where some of its worst atrocities occurred. For Germany in particular, it is a moment of challenge and opportunity. The challenge is to defend Europe’s liberal civilisation. The opportunity is for historic redemption. Russia must not prevail. This is what matters most. There will indeed be pain. But it must be borne for a far greater cause.
Again, it is my belief that this won't hold in the middle- to long-term, the current US leaders are playing with fire, an united Germany strategically allied with Russia in 10-15 years' time would be the end of many things on this continent, first of all of "democracy".
I don't understand, why would there be a risk that Germany be allied with Russia in 10-15 years time? To get cheap energy? That doesn't make any sense.
> To get cheap energy? That doesn't make any sense.
Why doesn't that make sense? The US did start several wars (plus a wrongfully deposed government or two) in the Persian Gulf for exactly that reason (that was until their shale gas revolution took off in the late '00s). Plus, a des-industrialised Germany (which is what this war will most probably mean for them) means a poorer Germany, means a more politically restless Germany, hence a higher risk of them getting rid of "principles" (or morals, as Martin Wolf pontificates about) and start looking at the bigger picture, at what's good for Germany and for the Germans.
Again, not sure how looking at this chart [1] from that same FT piece can make the Americans believe that the Europeans (or, more precisely, the Germans) can suck it up for the foreseeable future, all in the name of "democracy". This is a de-facto lighter version of the Morgenthau plan.
Germany has plenty of options for cheap energy. They chose to align with Russia due to political influence and - apparently - good old bribing. Replacing those pipelines isnt cheap or fast, but its feasible, and there are several options available to connect to both international ports and north african streams.
On the electricity front, it is still possible to backtrack partially on the denuclearization of the sector, helping to minimize some of the impact of cutting off Russia.
I still find it absurd that having a decline in economy would somehow push Germany to align with Russia, No offence, but economic issues or not, I don't think any European country with a smidgen of sanity would even touch Russia with a ten foot pole after what happened in the last few months.
Yes, that's exactly what I meant when talking about US's hegemonic power.
> Whereas western EU countries have more leverage over Russian companies without fearing much retaliation.
Some parts of the Russian political elites really believed (maybe they still do) that Europe's industrial heartland (or what's left of it, anyways) depended on cheap Russian energy. That was of course correct, Germany's industry greatly depends on access to cheap Russian energy. Where the Russians mis-calculated here was in thinking that the Europeans (meaning mostly the Germans) would relinquish their industrial advantage at the behest of the US (and partly the UK, even though is debatable how much of a geo-strategic role the UK still plays on the continent). As the German chancellor said a couple of days ago the upcoming total embargo on Russian energy will have economic consequences (there were talks of a 3-5% hit on the economy), imo this is a very risky play in the middle- to long-term, you don't want a united Germany hit by des-industrialisation in the middle of Europe.
Later edit: This recent editorial from FT's Martin Wolf is pure propaganda, it puts the onus 100% on the Germans and asks them to economically suck it up for the benefit of Europe and of "democracy" (apparently whenever the US gets involved in a war is always for protecting "democracy").
> A brutal conflict has come to Europe of a kind not seen since the second world war, and even where some of its worst atrocities occurred. For Germany in particular, it is a moment of challenge and opportunity. The challenge is to defend Europe’s liberal civilisation. The opportunity is for historic redemption. Russia must not prevail. This is what matters most. There will indeed be pain. But it must be borne for a far greater cause.
Again, it is my belief that this won't hold in the middle- to long-term, the current US leaders are playing with fire, an united Germany strategically allied with Russia in 10-15 years' time would be the end of many things on this continent, first of all of "democracy".
[1] https://archive.ph/qVVi2#selection-2031.117-2038.0