Strait Of Hormuz As a Breakpoint: Germany Not Taking Part In U.S. Naval Mission

[ThunderBlade + 231]

Chancellor Angela Merkel and the whole German government do not see Germany taking part in a U.S-led naval mission in the Strait of Hormuz at the moment, a government spokeswoman said on Monday. “The chancellor does not see a participation in a U.S-led mission in the current situation and at the current time - everyone in the German government agrees on that,” a government spokeswoman told a news conference. The U.S. Embassy in Berlin said on Tuesday the United States had asked Germany to join France and Britain in a mission to protect shipping through the strait and “combat Iranian aggression”. Germany rejected the request.

[pinto + 293]

Very sensitive moment, it will be interesting to hear the answer from WH...

[BALBOA + 37]

hmm, don't protect their ship then.

[Pavel + 384]

I'm afraid the whole EU will not take part of a naval US mission. They will just let Uncle Sam take care of it.

[joze44 + 39]

They are pariahs in terms of NATO.

[rainman + 263]

3 minutes ago, joze44 said:

They are pariahs in terms of NATO.

Strait of Hormuz crisis show US relationships and alliances have become detached.

[50 shades of black + 254]

8 minutes ago, joze44 said:

They are pariahs in terms of NATO.

 

4 minutes ago, rainman said:

Strait of Hormuz crisis show US relationships and alliances have become detached.

Being part of NATO is not enough. You need good relationships with allies. I'm afraid things are not so good as we thought...

[NickW + 2,714]

If Trump wants to keep a military presence in Europe and has any sense he will withdraw all forces to the one country that does actually meet its NATO obligations.

[Boat + 1,323]

Unless Europe or a country pays for the base, wear and tear on any and all equipment, why would we be there anyway. 

[DocManfred + 42]

Look at the outcome of the US wars with Irak and Lybia - it is a mess. We`ve got the fugitives in Europe and a hell of expenses.

Who broke it ? Who is going to fix it ? Not US so far !

We don´t want such results with Iran. Although from my point of view President Trump is right with some of his concerns with regard to Iran.

War is no alternative to diplomacy !

[ronwagn + 6,290]

8 hours ago, 50 shades of black said:

 

Being part of NATO is not enough. You need good relationships with allies. I'm afraid things are not so good as we thought...

Well, that is the fault of the German government and Merkel is on her way out. having lost popularity by inviting Muslims to emigrate to Germany. Future German elections will tell us more. Germany is also choosing Russian Gas and oil imports over American. Europe has not been doing its part in NATO and we need to make sure that we do not allow them to continue to drain our coffers of money that we are printing. We are too deep in debt already.

[Boat + 1,323]

If Europe and our allies did not buy oil and nat gas from notorious countries with bad reputations they certainly could not rely on the US to fill the gap. It’s only been a year since the US became a net nat gas exporter. We have minuscule amounts to ship. The US is a net oil importer so suppling Germany or any other country is plain spin. Keep it real folks. Germany needs more energy as most countries. I would imagine they hold their noses as the write those checks to Russia. Some situations are beyond politicians ability other than to choose between bad choices. Maybe they should have kept the nukes and transitioned to electric cars faster.

[John Foote + 1,135]

Does Germany even have a Navy of significance?

[DocManfred + 42]

I don´t know what you mean with significant. German Navy has got 65 ships and 55 aircraft. 40 new aircraft are ordered.

According to Wikipedia (latest edition August 6th, 2019), ship status December 2016, the German Navy has got 65 commissioned ships, including; 10 frigates, 5 corvettes, 3 minesweepers, 10 minehunters, 6 submarines, 11 replenishment ships and 20 miscellaneous auxiliary vessels.

For comparison the Royal Navy has got 73 ships, including 1 ship of the line, 1 aircraft carrier (on sea trials), 10 submarines, 2 amphibious transport docks, 6 destroyers, 13 frigates, 4 offshore patrol vessels, 13 mine countermeasures vessels, 18 fast patrol boats, 4 survey ships, 1 ice patrol ship, 1 static ship (Wikipedia, Royal Navy, latest edition: July 30th, 2019).

See below the list of the aircraft of the German Navy:

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

On 8/5/2019 at 9:03 AM, Pavel said:

I'm afraid the whole EU will not take part of a naval US mission. They will just let Uncle Sam take care of it.

I believe Trump's point is that the US no longer needs to police the Middle East and, therefore, won't.  Europe can buy its oil from the US and relax their restrictive laws. 

[NickW + 2,714]

6 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

I believe Trump's point is that the US no longer needs to police the Middle East and, therefore, won't.  Europe can buy its oil from the US and relax their restrictive laws. 

The joke of this (on the UK mug taxpayer) gulf policing is that the UK is practically self sufficient in oil

[NickW + 2,714]

13 hours ago, John Foote said:

Does Germany even have a Navy of significance?

Not one it will deploy.

The role of the British and French in the EUSSR (4th Reich) is that we provide the military arm both in body and payment.

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

4 hours ago, NickW said:

The joke of this (on the UK mug taxpayer) gulf policing is that the UK is practically self sufficient in oil

Yup - and the rest of Europe will rapidly reduce oil consumption.  We've reached a point where the Middle East is irrelevant. 

Personally, I suspect Trump called for a coalition knowing full well no one would participate.  Everyone was mindlessly repeating the now-obsolete line that we must protect the oil & the sea lanes.  The tepid response to an actual call for resources underscores the Middle East's irrelevance, immediately shifting everyone's perception.  The Western World is now freed of its learned helplessness.  Thanks Trump! 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

11 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

and relax their restrictive laws. 

which restrictive laws? 

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

China might escort ships in Gulf under U.S. proposal

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/china-might-escort-ships-gulf-125030360.html

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

8 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

which restrictive laws? 

Environmental laws that prevent petroleum production.  E.g. I believe most of Europe outlawed fracking. 

Not that there's anything wrong with environmental laws; I'm simply making the point that if they don't want to defend the Middle East, their options are to buy elsewhere or produce domestically.  It's no skin off my back either way. 

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

US, Saudi Arabia say they are working together on oil markets amid Gulf tensions

 

The US and Saudi Arabia are working together to ensure the security of global petroleum supplies amid increased tensions in the Persian Gulf, according to Saudi energy minister Khalid al-Falih and the US Department of Energy.

 

Falih and US energy secretary Rick Perry met Tuesday in Washington to discuss the stability of oil markets and the kingdom's hosting of the G20 presidency, among other issues, the US Department of Energy said in a statement posted on its website.

"Secretary Perry and Minister al-Falih reaffirmed that as two of the world's top suppliers of oil, the United States and Saudi Arabia will continue to work together to ensure that world oil markets remain well supplied to offset disruptions, especially in light of Iran's aggressive efforts to destabilize them," the department said.

 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

11 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Environmental laws that prevent petroleum production.  E.g. I believe most of Europe outlawed fracking. 

Not that there's anything wrong with environmental laws; I'm simply making the point that if they don't want to defend the Middle East, their options are to buy elsewhere or produce domestically.  It's no skin off my back either way. 

Agree. 

Incidently energy security was one of the first arguments for renewables in Europe. 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

53 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Agree. 

Incidently energy security was one of the first arguments for renewables in Europe. 

Unfortunately, renewables won't deliver that dream.  Europe would have been much better served with coal and nuclear. 

[NickW + 2,714]

5 minutes ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Unfortunately, renewables won't deliver that dream.  Europe would have been much better served with coal and nuclear. 

Both of which Europe are reliant on imports although I acknowledge the supply countries are in most cases different from the major sources of oil and gas.